4 ms·
It's interesting to speculate what Attenborough would say if he realized the lecture he saw was built on a lie. The article makes it clear that what converted A
by fidgewidge 4y ago
It's interesting to speculate what Attenborough would say if he realized the lecture he saw was built on a lie. The article makes it clear that what converted Attenborough was the NASA GISTEMP graph. It would never have occurred to him to ask whether this data was being manipulated.
The graph he saw is this one:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/attenborough-global-temp-graph.jpg https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/atten...
Go to the NASA GISTEMP website (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/) and look at the same graph as it is today. There are differences between the two. For example in the graph he saw, the temperature anomaly in 1981 is about 0.21 degree C. In the current graph it's 0.32 degree C.
It's a little known fact that the organizations producing graphs of global temperatures continually rewrite the historical record and often do so silently. These rewrites create warming trends in the data where in the past no such trends were visible. This article proves the case beyond doubt:
https://realclimatescience.com/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa/ https://realclimatescience.com/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa...
It shows two different graphs claiming to be the same version of the same temperature dataset, both on the NASA website. One is no longer linked from anywhere and can only be reached because the blog author preserved the link in his records. They have different data in them - the newer one shows more warming during the 20th century than the older one.
The head of climatology at NASA was challenged on Twitter to explain why historical data was being silently rewritten. His only response was a clown face emoji.
As you go further back into the past the edits become ever more extreme. The lecture notes admit that there was a "slight cooling" between 1940 and the end of the 1970s. The NASA temperature graphs show that global temperatures went sideways during this time - something that makes no sense given that the climatology of the era was dominated by fear of global cooling, nor if all the increase is caused by CO2 because CO2 levels increased steadily during this era (the lecture says it's a mystery).
Newspaper archives show that in the past, scientists had a very different view of what temperature was doing. Back then the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed global temperatures experiencing a strong multi-decade decline from the 1940s to the 1970s, with the temperature in 1973 being no different to the temperature 1910. Nowadays climatologists claim that the early 20th century were some of the coldest years on record with 1913 being a full half a degree colder globally than in 1973.
Climatologists don't deny that they do this, but as NASA's reaction shows they don't like people knowing about it. Over the last 20 years the field's approach to data integrity has collapsed completely and with predictable results - nothing can now be said about global temperatures with any certainty. Even basic things like announcing record breaking temperatures is no longer possible because the past is always being rewritten:
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest-month-on-record-please-stand-up/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...
> "NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data."
Changing past "observations" every time new data is recorded is scientifically nonsensical. The future cannot change the past.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mturmon 4y ago> The future cannot change the past. This statement, like so many of the statements in your comment, is tired climate-denier rhetoric. Past measurements are re-processed all the time, because the map from the measured quantity to the desired quantity needs to be re-calibrated. The data you're pointing to is a binned temperature dataset (5-degree by 5-degree bins). The land stations change location and instrumentation over the time period covered, and you have to account for this. Over time, you learn more and more about these effects, so periodically you re-process everything with new calibration. All this is documented in the papers pointed to by the website: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/noaa-global-temp https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/noaa-g...
- fidgewidge 4y agoPlease, leave the accusations of rhetoric to one side. Your post could equally be described as the tired rhetoric of climatologists but it's unproductive and shallow. Also. Please think very carefully about what they are saying because it makes no sense. If weather stations are moved today that doesn't change temperatures in the past. Moving individual stations is rare and climate change is by definition a wide area phenomenon. Occasional station moves shouldn't be having any effect on general global trends, yet the data is altered in ways that change long term trends. Recalibration means adjusting your instruments to improve the accuracy of future observations. It isn't a word that lets you arbitrarily change recorded data. By definition, if you believe your instruments were badly calibrated in the past, it means that past data is unreliable and shouldn't be used. When scientists aren't sure a measurement is reliable they're supposed to add confidence intervals. If the dubious data was from the past they should then retract papers built on that data, as the foundational data is no longer trusted. Climatologists never do these things. Temperature data is now being changed for every month in recorded history, every month. There is no scientific justification for that possible. If they can't be sure what the temperature is today, or last week, to such a great extent that historical documents about the past now completely contradict present claims, then they can't predict the future. There is no methodological claim that can change these things. Science requires basic standards or else it is meaningless cultism.