3 ms·

I’ve proven it with NASA data. What is this you are linking? Are those primary sources? Here is proof from of altered NASA data. https://news.ycombinator.com/t

I’ve proven it with NASA data. What is this you are linking? Are those primary sources? Here is proof from of altered NASA data. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=willmadden&next=27306973 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=willmadden&next=2730...

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
I realize you've made claim to having provided sources in another location, but you didn't provide the sources here, and I think it's disrespectful to others and their time to have to crawl through your comment history to find the information you could provide directly.
- willmadden 5y ago
  I edited it to link as close to my comment as I could. You are the one being disrespectful. I’m simply sharing proof of my assertion. You seem to have an agenda. Why is that?
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    It's pretty "pot and kettle" that you spend your entire interaction on this website single-mindedly pushing one or the other of two flame wars, and yet accuse other people (with far deeper and more varied comment histories!) of having an agenda.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
... Your "proof" is comparing two graphs? Is the raw data not available? As with the different keys it's really hard to see this supposed alteration. In the original, the high change in the 1930's looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees, and in the "altered" the change looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees. At most they altered it from 1.4 to 1.3, but that seems more likely to be an error than a grand conspiracy.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  It's actually true that the data was changed, but it was done to compensate for things like changes in what time the measurements were taken (a sundown temperature is likely warmer than a midnight or early morning one: if you've ever been outside at sundown and sunrise, you'll know which is cooler). Apparently there was indeed a shift from sundown measurements to morning, which, if not accounted for, would show a false "cooling" after that measurement procedure change. I am not a climate scientist, but I'd love to know if and why these corrections are invalid, or if, as claimed [1] multiple independent groups confirmed the corrections are consistent. [1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-dooc... cribbed from another comment, which cites sources, but I haven't looked at them (and I am not very qualified to make a judgement on the reliability in this field).
  - willmadden 5y ago
    The "politifact" article doesn't cite sources. Click on the links and you will receive 404 errors from NASA. Also, "politifact" is not a reputable source. They are funded by facebook, microsoft and other multinational corporations that are owned by Blackrock and Vanguard as well as various "foundations" that receive tax free donations from old money's corporate investments. https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/ https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/ Politifact is a multinational corporate propaganda outlet masquerading as a public service. Their track record on COVID and the mRNA vaccines is also an abomination. Correct, the 30's/40's data was changed and in only one direction (colder) as the NASA sourced articles I linked from different time periods proves. The original, unaltered data was always taken at sunset. They came up with other excuses to decrease the temperature of the original data readings from the 30's and 40's. I can't prove intent, but I can point to the hundreds of millions in grant money that the NSF only gives to scientists willing to produce results supporting its hypothesis of anthropogenic warming. I've been proven correct anyway about the bogus climate models. It's time to admit it is possible you have been snookered. https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredi...
sjostrom7 5y ago
Bold of you to link to a conversation where you get put in your place, but ok. Since you're apparently not interested in the politifact or snopes links someone else provided, here's a "primary source". In your comment you're making a stink about, you have one proper link to data from 1999, and one direct link to a later graph without context. The NASA page with the current graph, and explanations addressing the discrepancy directly below it, is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ But I suspect you already well knew that.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

I realize you've made claim to having provided sources in another location, but you didn't provide the sources here, and I think it's disrespectful to others and their time to have to crawl through your comment history to find the information you could provide directly.

willmadden 5y ago
I edited it to link as close to my comment as I could. You are the one being disrespectful. I’m simply sharing proof of my assertion. You seem to have an agenda. Why is that?
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  It's pretty "pot and kettle" that you spend your entire interaction on this website single-mindedly pushing one or the other of two flame wars, and yet accuse other people (with far deeper and more varied comment histories!) of having an agenda.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

... Your "proof" is comparing two graphs? Is the raw data not available? As with the different keys it's really hard to see this supposed alteration. In the original, the high change in the 1930's looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees, and in the "altered" the change looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees. At most they altered it from 1.4 to 1.3, but that seems more likely to be an error than a grand conspiracy.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
It's actually true that the data was changed, but it was done to compensate for things like changes in what time the measurements were taken (a sundown temperature is likely warmer than a midnight or early morning one: if you've ever been outside at sundown and sunrise, you'll know which is cooler). Apparently there was indeed a shift from sundown measurements to morning, which, if not accounted for, would show a false "cooling" after that measurement procedure change. I am not a climate scientist, but I'd love to know if and why these corrections are invalid, or if, as claimed [1] multiple independent groups confirmed the corrections are consistent. [1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-dooc... cribbed from another comment, which cites sources, but I haven't looked at them (and I am not very qualified to make a judgement on the reliability in this field).
- willmadden 5y ago
  The "politifact" article doesn't cite sources. Click on the links and you will receive 404 errors from NASA. Also, "politifact" is not a reputable source. They are funded by facebook, microsoft and other multinational corporations that are owned by Blackrock and Vanguard as well as various "foundations" that receive tax free donations from old money's corporate investments. https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/ https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/ Politifact is a multinational corporate propaganda outlet masquerading as a public service. Their track record on COVID and the mRNA vaccines is also an abomination. Correct, the 30's/40's data was changed and in only one direction (colder) as the NASA sourced articles I linked from different time periods proves. The original, unaltered data was always taken at sunset. They came up with other excuses to decrease the temperature of the original data readings from the 30's and 40's. I can't prove intent, but I can point to the hundreds of millions in grant money that the NSF only gives to scientists willing to produce results supporting its hypothesis of anthropogenic warming. I've been proven correct anyway about the bogus climate models. It's time to admit it is possible you have been snookered. https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredi...

sjostrom7 5y ago

Bold of you to link to a conversation where you get put in your place, but ok. Since you're apparently not interested in the politifact or snopes links someone else provided, here's a "primary source". In your comment you're making a stink about, you have one proper link to data from 1999, and one direct link to a later graph without context. The NASA page with the current graph, and explanations addressing the discrepancy directly below it, is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ But I suspect you already well knew that.