It’s Called UHI, Zeke
By Paul Homewood
According to Zeke, whenever we dare mention massive warming adjustments, which at the very least have minimal justification, we should also mention all of the opposing cooling adjustments they make.
“You will rarely see them pick out stations like Reno, Paris, London, Tokyo, or many others where the adjustments dramatically lower the warming trend”
You know. all of those urban stations where UHI has artificially increased temperatures in leaps and bounds.
Of course, these are the BEST adjustments he is talking about. It’s strange how nobody has seemed to have found any large scale cooling adjustments on GHCN. Or that NCDC themselves, who run GHCN, have failed to come up with any explanation for any of the warming adjustments revealed recently, or to reveal the overall effect of adjustments.
You could not make it up!
Comments are closed.
Paul, keep on digging and as you do the attacks will only increase. Hang in there. 🙂
Re. Paraguay: Eliza’s comments are quite telling.
We are watching Big Brother’s defeat, after the real battle-line was identified between:
1. Political powers and consensus ‘scientists’ adjusting experimental data on one side.
2. A benevolent creator and sustainer of every atom, life and world on the other side.
Side 1 directs society to UN’s Agenda 21:
http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm
Side 2 directs society to a much Higher Power:
Thus ends 70 years UN rule by deceit!
Never trust any organisation or individual that tries to elevate itself by saying it is an impartial authority. Most know the truth regarding Politifact, it is just a front.
It’s also ridiculous that in there they have to conflate bringing up adjustments with disputing 20th century warming – that is just a strawman. The issue is more complex, it is that of fudging data, particularly natural oscillations, along the lines of what was performed for the MWP to try best to maintain positive feedback / hockey schtick pseudoscience.
Keep up the good work Paul, you have them on the run.
Yes, Paul, you have Big Brother on the run now – unable to gracefully concede defeat while galloping off in disgrace.
As noted above, observations and measurements have been:
1. Altered to guide society to UN’s Agenda 21, or
2. Ignored or hidden if they revealed a Higher Power controlling the world and Earth’s climate.
Hi Paul,
There are lots of things to investigate. One site with what seems to be reliable data is this Russian site, not updated since year 2000 but still availabele here: http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/ with data from Northern stations here: http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Temper/tempGl_menu.htm
Original data temperature data from Jan Mayen are found here: http://home.online.no/~vteigen/vaer/aarbok.html and more specific here: http://home.online.no/~vteigen/vaer/sammendrag.pdf
They seems to be identical with the Russian Climas data, which gives the site some credibility.
These data were the truth until at least year 2000, but GISS have changed them.
The big question is why? What new knowledge can they provide to convince us that their adjusted data are better than the ones from year 2000?
Paul, remove or change this post, you have been tricked.
You talk GISS they talk BEST and are right.
How can I contact you with info?
The strategy of the climate science community is to overwhelm the public with irrelevant data, bogus comparisons and straw men. Do not fall into the trap of discussing other datasets. Focus on NCDC/GISS.
Once they’ve got out the message that there are downward adjustments as well as upward, they’ll have achieved their aim of keeping the useful idiots onboard.
In the posts at Climate Etc, BEST say that overall they adjust US temperatures up and adjust Africa down. I haven’t seen BEST say why they adjust Africa down, or why adjust US up.
GISS & GHCN include very few stations in Africa and so GISS doesn’t show Africa warming or cooling in their global graphics. Anyone know where BEST gets their Africa temperature data from and how they know that they have adjusted the real temperatures down.
I would suggest ignoring BEST. NCDC/GISS has a poorly functioning algorithm. That should remain the focus.
The problem is that the BEST attack dogs are attacking Paul showing their work contradicting what he is saying, when Paul is not showing anything about them at all, it is all about NOAA/GISS.