Exploring the GHCN Data Part One: Getting the Raw Data

[Leonhard]

Its lent; I gave up theologyweb along with a lot of other things. I post only because its weird to stumble upon a discussion happening in absentia.

The short answer to lack of update is lack of time. I was already short on it when I started, and now I've gotten new responsibilities at work. I don't think its realistic for me to finish this anymore. When I get home I'm exhausted. Its unfortunate.

It was a very small scope project, just objectively examine the adjustments made and whether they were all in favor of Global Warming, and have a discussion about all of them. It wasn't to reproduce, and justify, and examine the entire field of climate science. People here seems to be expecting it to be that, which is a bit odd.

I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.

My scope was specifically limited to examining the calibrations. Why they were made, and whether, as has been claimed, they were all, always, in favor of Global Warming.

I'd love to continue it, but frankly, at this stage. I'm out of time so I can't.

On hold until I have free time and energy for it.

See you all after Lent (April 1st). I won't be responding until then.

[Mountain Man]

I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive...

It's persuasive because those who have kept past copies of data have found unexplained discrepancies when compared to newer archives. Past data should be set in stone, so when you compare an archive from, say, 2010 with an archive from 2015, there should be total agreement between the two sets of data. But when you find, instead, that the newer data has had its numbers quietly "adjusted" to fit the global warming agenda then anybody with a modicum of common sense will smell a rat.

image115.png
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/

[Teallaura]

...
I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.
...

I don't find the conspiracy theory persuasive - I find 'sloppy' the way you (personal) described the handling of data in general which I made clear with the parenthetical (eg: unverified). You weren't dealing with the verification issue - you said you were leaving that until another time which is fine - but you have also said over several posts that the data was BOTH unverified and weighted - just not by you personally. Either of those can be problematic (if you (general) can't trust the data set this is a bad thing; if you (general) are adjusting to correct for a skew you (general) are introducing the possibility of creating an externally invalid measure which is also a bad thing).

I find conspiracies unlikely - especially big ones (people talk way too much) but stupidity, that knows no bounds. And I find the caveat that certain kinds of stupidity require really smart people to be true as well.

The question is, is there really no sizable effort put into verification - which is what it sounds like in your post. If so, then there are internal validity issues at the get go. MAYBE they are meaningful, maybe not, but for me personally, I'm not voting to spend my tax dollars on something justified by 1) unverified data, 2) weighted analysis based on unverified data and 3) a weighted MEAN without a heck of an explanation why I should accept conclusions drawn from methodology with those issues.

I still think MM's wrong about conspiracies but that doesn't mean that the corollary - that something is fishy here - is actually false. Things like 'weighting unverified data' do not inspire confidence - which was my point.

Just in case it wasn't already clear - the term 'extremely sloppy' didn't apply to you at any point. Reread it - I'm not even discussing your methodology.