They run temp data through pairwise homogeneity adjustment software, which in theory is supposed to remove inhomogeneities like someone built a building across from the temperature station so it gets a bit more shade so we adjust previous temperatures to compensate. In Hansen 1999 (https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf) you can see the before and after for PH as it was used in 1999 and it would be difficult to see the minor changes unless you overlaid the graphs. A couple decades later and the difference between raw data and "adjusted" data is staggering. The data is figure 6 has been adjusted to where instead of cooling from 1940 to 1980 (which is well attested to) there's a flat curve and then the recovery to not even 1940s level (the rapid heating from 1880 to 1930 before significant CO2 emissions is also well attested to) becomes a huge increase to unprecedented levels. The only long term temperature data that exists is from the United States and that shows no net temp increase before the data is adjusted.
You can see in figure 5 that the rest of the world is supposedly heating up but the rest of the world doesn't have temp measurements. Europe didn't measure temps until the latter half of the 20th century when the US data shows the world was recovering from a short cold period. And outside US and Europe the rest of the world didn't measure temps until the 21th century.
Then the satellite record. It didn't show significant warming until it was adjusted. What really red pilled me on "climate change" was when I read an article that was smugly declaring that while the satellite record didn't show warming it's now been "adjusted" and shows warming. This was presented as some type of kill shot to "deniers". Climate change is fake and GAE.
If you've heard of Climategate, one of the main issues was the climate scientists stop using tree ring data as a temp proxy for temps after 1960 because the tree ring data doesn't show warming. Something is "wrong" with the tree ring data. All the defenders of climate scientists say it's standard to ignore this data because it isn't good- but they don't know why it isn't good they just assume it isn't because it doesn't match their beliefs. Wow. Much Science.
They run temp data through pairwise homogeneity adjustment software, which in theory is supposed to remove inhomogeneities like someone built a building across from the temperature station so it gets a bit more shade so we adjust previous temperatures to compensate. In Hansen 1999 (https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf) you can see the before and after for PH as it was used in 1999 and it would be difficult to see the minor changes unless you overlaid the graphs. A couple decades later and the difference between raw data and "adjusted" data is staggering. The data is figure 6 has been adjusted to where instead of cooling from 1940 to 1980 (which is well attested to) there's a flat curve and then the recovery to not even 1940s level (the rapid heating from 1880 to 1930 before significant CO2 emissions is also well attested to) becomes a huge increase to unprecedented levels. The only long term temperature data that exists is from the United States and that shows no net temp increase before the data is adjusted.
You can see in figure 5 that the rest of the world is supposedly heating up but the rest of the world doesn't have temp measurements. Europe didn't measure temps until the latter half of the 20th century when the US data shows the world was recovering from a short cold period. And outside US and Europe the rest of the world didn't measure temps until the 21th century.
Then the satellite record. It didn't show significant warming until it was adjusted. What really red pilled me on "climate change" was when I read an article that was smugly declaring that while the satellite record didn't show warming it's now been "adjusted" and shows warming. This was presented as some type of kill shot to "deniers". Climate change is fake and GAE.
If you've heard of Climategate, one of the main issues was the climate scientists stop using tree ring data as a temp proxy for temps after 1960 because the tree ring data doesn't show warming. Something is "wrong" with the tree ring data. All the defenders of climate scientists say it's standard to ignore this data because it isn't good- but they don't know why it isn't good they just assume it isn't because it doesn't match their beliefs. Wow. Much Science.