3 ms·

I'd say that this article doesn't really show even that much. According to the article itself, "This is mainly due to using an improved temperature dataset to

I'd say that this article doesn't really show even that much. According to the article itself, "This is mainly due to using an improved temperature dataset to estimate the baseline rather than sudden changes in climate indicators." This is an example of the past changing, rather than the present. I'm not sure how to react when the only change was the past got cooler - I wouldn't think that would change anything in the present or future.

willmadden 5y ago
I have an alternate hypothesis: the past didn't magically become cooler. The propagandists changed the historical temperature data (yet again) to sustain their narrative because it supports unrelated agendas.
- gspr 5y ago
  Mods: I think this claim is so far from reality, and pure misinformation, that it should be deleted. Let's not pollute HN with garbage.
  - willmadden 5y ago
    Wait, so suggesting that temperature data recorded in the past was in fact accurate and shouldn't be altered to suit political narratives is far from reality? You are demanding censorship of this idea? Wow, just wow.
    - gspr 5y ago
      > Wait, so suggesting that temperature data recorded in the past was in fact accurate and shouldn't be altered to suit political narratives is far from reality? Yes. Because it didn't happen. > You are demanding censorship of this idea? No. In the same way that it's cool to hear dissenting political views at the local pub, but if a guy stands up and starts raving about the children trapped by the pedophile lizard people, I kinda want him to get kicked out so that I don't have to be associated with society-destroying lunatics like that. You're that guy. That guy isn't being subjected to "censorship of his idea". He's being kicked out of the establishment for being a moron and ruining the mood. Go write a book about your crazy ideas. Now if the government makes it illegal to publish, you can decry censorship.
      - willmadden 5y ago
        Except it absolutely DID happen and I can prove it. Here is a report published in 1999 by NOAA and NASA showing temperatures much higher in the 1930's with cooling through the end of the century. Skip to page 37 and look at figure 6. Note the high point of 1.5 degrees C in the 30's from 1999 data. Warning, PDF file: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pd... Compare this with the same data today and you'll miraculously see the 1930's as much cooler with a warming trend (again, NASA direct data - note the new high point from the 30's is 1.2 degrees C): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S.... Here is an article summarizing the alterations in case you do not want to read the NASA/NOAA report, but I know you will attack the source, which is why I published the report from 1999 and the same data from 2019 directly first. You can verify everything in this article with the original source materials using the links shared previously: https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/ https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/alterations-to-the-us...
        gspr 5y ago
        Before I start to even consider these sources, can you tell me in a clear yes or no answer whether they show: (1) that the data was altered and (2) that the data was altered to suit a political narrative. Only if the answer to both is yes will I even read any of this. I'll wait. (Why am I being difficult? I believe you're a typical nutcase who sees X happening, and immediately concludes that "X is happening to fit the political narrative")
        willmadden 5y ago
        The sources are literally direct links to nasa.gov. 1) Yes, the data was altered. 2) I can't prove a causal relationship between the alteration of the data and a political narrative, but I believe in Occam's razor. So, I've proven conclusively that NASA altered their temperature data in the 20th century from a cooling trend to a warming trend. See for yourself.

willmadden 5y ago

I have an alternate hypothesis: the past didn't magically become cooler. The propagandists changed the historical temperature data (yet again) to sustain their narrative because it supports unrelated agendas.

gspr 5y ago
Mods: I think this claim is so far from reality, and pure misinformation, that it should be deleted. Let's not pollute HN with garbage.
- willmadden 5y ago
  Wait, so suggesting that temperature data recorded in the past was in fact accurate and shouldn't be altered to suit political narratives is far from reality? You are demanding censorship of this idea? Wow, just wow.
  - gspr 5y ago
    > Wait, so suggesting that temperature data recorded in the past was in fact accurate and shouldn't be altered to suit political narratives is far from reality? Yes. Because it didn't happen. > You are demanding censorship of this idea? No. In the same way that it's cool to hear dissenting political views at the local pub, but if a guy stands up and starts raving about the children trapped by the pedophile lizard people, I kinda want him to get kicked out so that I don't have to be associated with society-destroying lunatics like that. You're that guy. That guy isn't being subjected to "censorship of his idea". He's being kicked out of the establishment for being a moron and ruining the mood. Go write a book about your crazy ideas. Now if the government makes it illegal to publish, you can decry censorship.
    - willmadden 5y ago
      Except it absolutely DID happen and I can prove it. Here is a report published in 1999 by NOAA and NASA showing temperatures much higher in the 1930's with cooling through the end of the century. Skip to page 37 and look at figure 6. Note the high point of 1.5 degrees C in the 30's from 1999 data. Warning, PDF file: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pd... Compare this with the same data today and you'll miraculously see the 1930's as much cooler with a warming trend (again, NASA direct data - note the new high point from the 30's is 1.2 degrees C): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S.... Here is an article summarizing the alterations in case you do not want to read the NASA/NOAA report, but I know you will attack the source, which is why I published the report from 1999 and the same data from 2019 directly first. You can verify everything in this article with the original source materials using the links shared previously: https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/ https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/alterations-to-the-us...
      - gspr 5y ago
        Before I start to even consider these sources, can you tell me in a clear yes or no answer whether they show: (1) that the data was altered and (2) that the data was altered to suit a political narrative. Only if the answer to both is yes will I even read any of this. I'll wait. (Why am I being difficult? I believe you're a typical nutcase who sees X happening, and immediately concludes that "X is happening to fit the political narrative")
        willmadden 5y ago
        The sources are literally direct links to nasa.gov. 1) Yes, the data was altered. 2) I can't prove a causal relationship between the alteration of the data and a political narrative, but I believe in Occam's razor. So, I've proven conclusively that NASA altered their temperature data in the 20th century from a cooling trend to a warming trend. See for yourself.