Goddard plots GISS data against the original historical data:
There is discrepancy, not just in degrees F., but also in slope. So Goddard plotted the discrepancy:
Now if a measurement methodological change required a change due to a different manner in method or device type, that would be adjusted with an across-the-board constant which is added or subtracted in order to normalize the data. That obviously is not the case, since the adjustment factor is not only not constant, it is highly non-linear (variable). Further, the overall slope is adjusted from negative to positive:
And not just barely positive; a very positive slope has been created as an adjustment to the NAS data. This indicates data tampering. And the tampering is in the direction of aggressive warming as opposed to the historical data indicating slight cooling since 1940. They have already been accused of removing the middle ages warm period as well. And by "they" I refer to the amorphous pool of climate "experts" who have settled the science beyond criticism.
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” Richard Feynman
2 comments:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Disraeli
There is a more egregious and insidious misrepresentation within and between those charts.
The current "settled science consensus" (at least among the most vociferous warblers about global warming) is that a global temperature change of approximately 2°C (or less) would NOT mean "the sky is falling as the ocean is rising!" On the other hand, a global temperature change of approximately 4°C (or more) WOULD signify potentially serious issues.
Now consider the scale along the left side of the included graphs.
The widest range is in graph #1, and is scaled to -0.6°C to +0.6°C. Hmmm; that doesn't get us to the halfway point of "not going to be a significant problem," much less close to "DISASTER IMPENDING! All crash dummies must put on safety helmets NOW!"
Graph #2 has a similar range, albeit slightly narrower (-0.5°C to +0.5°C), but the actual data fits between approximately -0.4°C to +0.4°C.
Graph #3 purports to show temperature data "Since 1975" (and it does include it as a subrange) but the range of data covers from 1880 to 1980. More curious is that the vertical data scale has been narrowed to -0.4°C to +0.1°C. If the previous scale had been used, there would be hardly anything noticeable above 0°C.
Graph #4 burrows further down into the "weeds." We now have a time duration between 1945 and 1970, but the vertical scale has been reduced to insignificance: -0.2°C to +0.05°C.
For those incapable of seeing the deceptiveness involved in these graphs, I heartily recommend a slim volume (especially chapter 5, "The Gee-Whiz Graph"):
How To Lie With Statistics
Darrell Huff
© 1954
ISBN 978-0-393-31072-6
Amazon: How To Lie With Statistics
$9.08
What do I know?!? I'm not a statistician.
Link to Cal Thomas's article on this topic:
No Denying Climate Change Deniers
The money quote:
This is about government gaining more control over the lives of its citizens. Already they are in our bathrooms, our cars, our light bulbs and so many other areas that have the cumulative effect of encroaching on our freedoms. Government is not the final arbiter of truth, yet the global-warming cultists worship at its shrine.
(My emphasis added.)
Post a Comment