Are we using bad data?

So, you think scientists don't post and contribute to blogs?

 

In the main they don’t. But I am happy if in this instance you want to bust a gut and prove that the person posting jacks latest rubbish is an actual scientist - not just someone with an out of date qualification in meteorology from the time when the study of meteorology was little better than a hillbilly weather indicator

 

And you base that on what?

.I think you'd find many, many, scientists DO blog expansively.

 

Okay - prove it!
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-The-percentage-figures-in-the_fig3_303842300

Lols!

 

Seems like a pretty good number to me. Assuming they're current and accurate.

 

Credentialism is among the stupidest arguments.
The science is here: Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed

 

That's the difference between a skeptic and a true believer: the true believer -- like you -- thinks the choice is just of whom to believe, whereas the skeptic thinks the choice is whether to believe or think.

 

The answer to the OP question is: Yes.
Further Investigations on Errors in Weather Station Data Evaluations
Guest Blogger
In conclusion, all three analysis approaches had similar results that point towards substantially less global warming within the last 140 years than previously thought. . . .

 

Ya' think?

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

 

Don't take the UK temperature record at face value.
EXCLUSIVE: A Third of U.K. Met Office Temperature Stations May Be Wrong by Up to 5°C, FOI Reveals
CHRIS MORRISON

Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have an internationally-defined margin of error of up to 5°C . . . .

 

The UK Met Office has some explaining to do.
Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity

BY CHRIS MORRISON

Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. . . .

 

More fraud has been exposed.
TOO HOT TO HANDLE: NIWA’s misleading temperature records
Ian Wishart

“Claimed record after claimed record, there’s evidence that NIWA’s cherry picked data is being used (and coloured in dark red for the most extreme bits) to bolster the narrative that extreme…

A spot audit of NIWA’s 2023 flagship Annual Climate Summary report and some of its predecessors over the past five years has uncovered multiple major errors that cumulatively exaggerate the impact of climate change and drive public fear.

Based on a detailed analysis of historic newspaper reports containing temperature, rainfall and other weather data and comparing them to NIWA’s published climate summaries, the audit has found

• Claimed temperature records that were never real records
• Claimed rainfall records that were never real records
• NIWA published false information on New Zealand’s biggest historic cyclone, creating a false narrative that Cyclone Gabrielle was bigger and driven by climate change
• Cherrypicked data is being used to exaggerate the apparent frequency of climate records being broken
• The practice of reporting records by month is giving NIWA twelve times more opportunities to claim records in any given location, creating media and public confusion and a sense of relentless overwhelming climate change
• NIWA is unaware of New Zealand’s highest temperatures
• NIWA’s claim that only three days in our history have experienced temperatures higher than 40C is wrong: the real figure is nearly triple that
• That there’s little evidence of climate change increasing extreme maximum temperatures in New Zealand, absolute records from a century ago are still intact. . . .

 

Cooking the books on sea level rise:
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXXII (Sea Level Rise Edition)
March 18, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud by which government functionaries alter data collected and previously reported in official data bases in order to support a narrative of impending catastrophic global warming. No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance.
  
  
• The prior 31 posts in this series have all concerned alteration of one particular sort of data, namely temperature records.
  
  
• But why should we really care that the earth’s atmosphere is getting a little warmer? The UN has supposedly set some kind of Maginot Line at a 1.5 deg C temperature increase from 20th century levels — an amount so small that you can barely feel it when it occurs each day. The 1.5 deg mark is just not that all that scary. So the bureaucrats need a Plan B to scare the bejeezus out of the people. Plan B is sea level rise.
  
  
• So don’t be surprised to learn that the sea level data, produced by NASA, have recently been altered — and of course, in a way to enhance the global warming scare narrative.
  

READ MORE