If there was even the most remote possibility that climate data were falsely manipulated the US House of Representatives would have had public hearings (as Infoye promised). Without question House Republicans investigated the climate data – and without question they found that there was no manipulation – zero.

Deniers are liars – stupid liars.

I would not call anything being done "data tampering". There is certainly some corrections made to the data that are done in an unblinded manner and can certainly allow bias to enter into the corrected data. It is unreasonable to assume that these are not people capable of mistake and bias.

That being said, normally I would say that the corrections made would have little impact on the results as such things tend to balance and come out in the wash. Global warming, however, poses a more interesting problem. You are dealing with extremely variable data and looking for a small signal in a HUGE amount of noise. Further, you are dealing with MANY corrections.

Still, I would be surprised if the actual temperatures varied from the measured temps by more than say -0.1 to + 0.3 degrees. This would not mean that there is no warming, but could have drastic effects on the future modeling. But what are you going to do? You have to make the best with the data you have.

Trevor had posted something about checking the effect of the corrections. I would like more description of the process before I eliminate this as a possible source of bias, but at least they are doing some checks.

One thing to note, I had my range form -0.1 degrees to + 0.3 as the effect of the corrections. One may argue that it should be centered at 0, but as climate scientists are human beings, bias can be assumed. The bias I have seen from Gary F, Peg, and Trevor, is certainly toward warming.

There is a reason that happens. This isn't something that should be done. Collecting data is about fact finding. So, if it's tampered with, the facts steer more towards someone trying to get a rise out of it. Too much or too little of it, is not just right.

Excuse me, but I do know who Lockheed-Martin is.

I do know that the skunk-works designed the p-38.

And the U2 and the A12 and the SR71 and the F22 etc.

That video did not say that Lockheed was looking for funding.

The presenter was associated with Lockheed, but I don't think that it was Lockheed that was asking for funding.

They're pretty well off.

If they needed money, they have it.

AND, if they really thought it would work, they'd not be looking for outside investors with whom to share the profits.

However, yes, I do think it was not going to work.

Even on the video it said that they didn't know how/why it worked.

Even when they built it to not work, it worked.

In a miniscule amount.

Both times.

More likely than not, there was an error in the measuring system, that was common to both tests.

But, as to your post, "Of course you are so intellectually brilliant and knowledgeable".

Why thank you. Nice of you to notice. :)

Of course not. Daft question and Cyclops doesn't want people answering directly in response to his question.

Of course you are so intellectually brilliant and knowledgable, you did not even know who Lockheed-Martin the largest aerospace and defence contractor in the world was, and thought they were looking for funding and it was all a scam.

Edit

Lin Lyons. you are all wrong again they did not say, they did not know how it worked (I rewatched it) they did not say it worked when backward.

But I think I understand, I think you must have watched a video about NASA and the cannae drive and mixed them up.

No, of course not. It is purely coincidence that the corrections we have found out about all point to the temperature being lower than reported.