Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Judged:

2

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
If you had any credibility someone might believe you. But you have none because all your information comes from unreliable sources.

Judged:

2

2

1

DumBozo wrote:

If you had any credibility someone might believe you. But you have none because all your information comes from unreliable sources.

Judged:

3

2

1

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Is GISS a reliable source:
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunte...
If so, what caused this change between 1999 and 2008?

Judged:

2

2

1

DumBozo wrote:

Another case of denier hype. The data was adjusted because of calibration problems in the satellite instruments. All measuring devices must be calibrated.

DumBozo wrote:

Of course the deniers always hype any calibration as proof that there is a grand conspiracy to mislead the world.

DumBozo wrote:

Also no measuring device except counting is ever exactly correct so no matter how carefully instruments are calibrated there is always error.

DumBozo wrote:

This error can be exploited and propagandized by the deniers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Really?
Please post a citation, or do I file your comment under BS, where it belongs?<quoted text>Where did I write conspiracy?<quoted text>You explained that already.<quoted text>Repeating yourself again grandpaw.
-
NB: I need you to explain and cite why the 1999 graph is so much different from the 2008 graph?

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
And yours is -1.

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Another case of denier hype. The data was adjusted because of calibration problems in the satellite instruments. All measuring devices must be calibrated. Of course the deniers always hype any calibration as proof that there is a grand conspiracy to mislead the world. Also no measuring device except counting is ever exactly correct so no matter how carefully instruments are calibrated there is always error. This error can be exploited and propagandized by the deniers.

Judged:

3

3

2

kal wrote:

<quoted text>oh my 'bozo', now it all makes sense. they are not tampering with and fudging the numbers at all. the lousy measuring devices they are using are never correct and always in error. that explains why the data must be constantly adjusted to get the desired numbers. and since the newest up to date equipment taxpayers money can buy is always wrong, the older measurements of years gone by must have been horribly wrong and of course they needed a much bigger adjustment to fit the desired results. yes 'bozo', it was all so wrong it had to be adjusted to make it right, the way it has to be to show the warming trend that just has to be there. they must wonder why they have to use all of that silly equipment when they can just make up the numbers on their computer simulations like hansen and mann. it is all so much more scientific when you can make up your own numbers. yes 'bozo', it was all so wrong, but with the new numbers now it's right. what's not to love about 'climate science'? it is just wrong enough to be right.

Judged:

1

1

1

DumBozo wrote:

measurement
counting
calibrate
adjust readings
Measuring devices
refined
correct value
exactness.

Judged:

2

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

To believe that the data is adjusted to create some kind of conspiracy is on the same level as the "birthers".

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Still waiting for a citation with reference to what caused the change between 1999 and 2008?
How many more 'refinements' to current data can be expected in the future?

Judged:

1

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Seeing is believing. Here are three glaring examples that most of us know about because they come up over and over and over again. Your side consistantly makes excuses as to why they really aren't as they appear to be

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a graph of the change that GISS has made since 2008:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
I've been keeping data on GISS since 2008 so it's an easy matter to subtract 2008 values from the current 2012 measurements and graph them out.
I'm sure you see the pattern. I'm also rather sure you will make up some sort of an excuse as to why it really isn't what it appears to be. And what it appears to be is an obvious bias to lower the earlier temperatures and raise more recent measurements.
One has to wonder why there were no net downward values since 1977. That's 35 years of one way adjustments. Does that give you any pause at all? It's plainly obvious that there's bias at GISS, and it's not difficult to imaging that the bias plainly visible in that graph permeates everything that Dr. Hansen and GISS touch. I don't make this stuff up, it's right there for anyone who is the least bit curious to see for themselves.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Judged:

2

1

1

Northie wrote:

As are so many here, Case (aka, "Liberals Suck")

Northie wrote:

remains convinced that the temperature record is all a vast socialist political conspiracy.

Northie wrote:

30,000 posts on this thread and the true believers are still here complaining that all these rising mountains of evidence compiled for more than a century are nothing but a hoax.

Northie wrote:

Good grief. If ever there were testimony to the undying persistence of political fanaticism, this is it.

Judged:

1

1

1

DumBozo wrote:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/