This is a reminder that this is not the first time the climate gang has done this. In fact it seems to be standard procedure.
Back in 2009, long before GG, there was Climategate. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had their emails and some of their code leaked. In these emails it was shown that Michael Mann (Penn State at the time, he made the Hockeystick graph) and Phil Jones (CRU) conspired to get papers retracted or prevent their acceptance across multiple journals.. They were tipped off by a New York Times reporter, Andrew Revkin. Sometimes they get the editors to allow them to review their enemies work, with obvious rejections following from that.
As a side note, the defamation lawsuit by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn started in 2012 is still ongoing. It's amazing how long you can drag a suit out with unlimited government funds.
Yep, the ClimateGate.
Heard about it on a podcast episode "Cherry Picking" by Red Pilled America, it was quite a while ago since they broadcasted it but its one of the few which struck me the most.
One of the guys who were in that episode talked about weather data acquisitioning and he recalled that several weather stations throughout USA were measuring record high heat during the summers of mid 2000's. However when they (I think Stephen if my memory serves me right) dug into the measurement of those temperatures, he found out that those "weather stations" were data loggers placed in the middle of a sunbaked parking lot. No wonder they were measuring extreme temperatures. Or how warmer periods of centuries past (such as during the height of the Roman Empire or more recent the draughts of 1930's America) are downplayed to obfuscate the unpredictability of the climate.
It was WUWT. They are the ones that instigated the Surface Stations project, which tried to categorize all temperature stations that were listed as part of the USHCN. http://surfacestations.org/
Suffice to say that the NOAA's data collection is basically bunk, with the majority of temperature stations of record having errors greater than 2 degrees. Anyone who has taken a college level physics lab knows that in propagation of error your error cannot go below the instrument error, no matter how many measurements you average.
This is a reminder that this is not the first time the climate gang has done this. In fact it seems to be standard procedure.
Back in 2009, long before GG, there was Climategate. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had their emails and some of their code leaked. In these emails it was shown that Michael Mann (Penn State at the time, he made the Hockeystick graph) and Phil Jones (CRU) conspired to get papers retracted or prevent their acceptance across multiple journals.. They were tipped off by a New York Times reporter, Andrew Revkin. Sometimes they get the editors to allow them to review their enemies work, with obvious rejections following from that.
As a side note, the defamation lawsuit by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn started in 2012 is still ongoing. It's amazing how long you can drag a suit out with unlimited government funds.
Yep, the ClimateGate. Heard about it on a podcast episode "Cherry Picking" by Red Pilled America, it was quite a while ago since they broadcasted it but its one of the few which struck me the most.
One of the guys who were in that episode talked about weather data acquisitioning and he recalled that several weather stations throughout USA were measuring record high heat during the summers of mid 2000's. However when they (I think Stephen if my memory serves me right) dug into the measurement of those temperatures, he found out that those "weather stations" were data loggers placed in the middle of a sunbaked parking lot. No wonder they were measuring extreme temperatures. Or how warmer periods of centuries past (such as during the height of the Roman Empire or more recent the draughts of 1930's America) are downplayed to obfuscate the unpredictability of the climate.
Sadly I forgot the adres of a blog which went further into the data about the matter. Maybe its American Thinker blog or wattsupwiththat
It was WUWT. They are the ones that instigated the Surface Stations project, which tried to categorize all temperature stations that were listed as part of the USHCN. http://surfacestations.org/
Suffice to say that the NOAA's data collection is basically bunk, with the majority of temperature stations of record having errors greater than 2 degrees. Anyone who has taken a college level physics lab knows that in propagation of error your error cannot go below the instrument error, no matter how many measurements you average.
That's right, that's the page, thanks!