https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

pegminer says : " ... What about Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy? They're all real climate scientists, and presumably they would know what it takes to go from the raw data to an estimate of global temperature. Why don't they do that? ... "

That's easy pegminer! They don't draw conclusions based on incomplete information or arrogant assumptions. They understand that this has been a warming world since the end of the last ice age and they might actually do some "positive" research that go against the grain of bringing up "negative" research as you constantly do. Your "just-in-case" attitude is now "full blown activism" based on inferences and innuendos made by your fellow climate clowns that you quote.

The "actual" climate change that has happened over the past 350 years is 0.012%. It hasn't caused much "real world" change. It's "Climate Clown Activism" that has created the illusion of "catastrophic" changes to come if we don't stop using fossil fuels. They use every day catastrophes as proof. They're a joke! It's nothing but a "pipe dream" for environmental alarmists and your fellow alarmists are only creating an illusion of a future of catastrophes.

You're an activist scientist. Not a real scientist.

No, you can't really prove that because a lot of companies and people tamper with data. You see, there are people who are honestly truthful, and people who lie constantly. Everyone suffers because of the bad people. Now getting back to data, it also depends on the way you draw the graph. For example, if I had a company that jumped only 1% in the annual sales, it wouldn't even show up much on a standard graph. However, I could zoom in and make the scale different, so that it appears sales skyrocketed. Part of the way data is represented is by the graph/scale used.

You could always just do it yourself. Despite what is frequently claimed in here, the raw data is available--go ahead and make your own estimate of global temperature. Of course, we heard these claims before and the Koch brothers funded the BEST study, and guess what happened? The results turned out essentially the same.

Instead of making cartoons, how come "Steven Goddard" doesn't do a real study and get it published? Of course he'd have to use his real name then, and he'd have to do something more serious than animated GIFs, but wouldn't he gain more credence in the scientific community by doing that?

What about Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy? They're all real climate scientists, and presumably they would know what it takes to go from the raw data to an estimate of global temperature. Why don't they do that?

I hear constantly that climate scientists are wrong about this, or they're wrong about that, but I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and showing why and doing a better job.

Clearly there is tampering, i.e. adjustments. Alarmists would like you to believe that all adjustments coincidentally exaggerated present warming. They like to talk statistics but aren't interested in that particular statistic. I would say it less than a one in a hundred chance, based on an approximate hundred times they fudge the numbers to exaggerate warming, to zero (I have to assume one). As long as it furthers the cause, that is all that seems to matter to them. They are happy little sheep that want to believe what they are told.

When you show the climate clowns how they lied about US temperature they change the subject and suggest the US isn't global. When you add lots of other countries, those too are not global. You can look at Greenland, Europe, China, Australia, New Zealand, Himalaya, etc and all those aren't global either but they add up.

I personally cannot do so. The data is being compared across many scientific groups and I am certain that had there been any tampering that at least one of these groups would like to expose a fraud being committed. Can you prove that Steven Goddard has not done any data tampering?

It is interesting that you think tampering going on.

Would that be tampering with temperature records?

Would it also include tampering with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Would it also include the science of how CO2 creates global warming?

http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-...

In general, it seems like any excuse is good,

as long as we don't have to limit burning fossil fuels.

Personally, I wouldn't trust Steven Goddard, since he posted a video of a graph taped to a see-saw. Why not post the graphs of adjusted and unadjusted data side-by-side, so that people can actually inquire as to whether the adjustments are necessary or justified? Because Mr. Goddard doesn't want them to. Steven Goddard isn't interested in the truth, only in smearing honest scientists.

The reason for temperature adjustments

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-refe...

Well I get suspicious because all the adjustments cause a rise in modern temperatures, never the other way.

Hmm adjustments for UHI make past temperature readings colder, HOW CAN THAT MAKE SENSE.

Politifact rated the claim "NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming" as "pants on fire" [1]

P.S. Most intelligent people would agree that one has to prove there is tampering going on, not the other way around.

I was curious about the choice of temperature data as well. That is why I posted this question.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

Unusually for the Global Warming section, my question repeatedly vanished into thin air.