Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past ~ George Orwell
We "skeptics" have suspected for a long time that most Global Warming™ is indeed manmade.
No, not in the sense that there's an actual increase in the Earth's temperature from human production of so-called greenhouse gases that's discernible from otherwise natural temperature variations. But in the sense that temperature and other data is tortured by AGW-believing "scientists" until it tells them what they want to hear.
This is how Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and it's how every year becomes one of the hottest years ever measured.
Today Anthony Watts and coauthors released a paper quantifying the impact of station quality issues and NOAA data adjustments on the USHCN temperature records that are one of the most important books in the warmists' bible:
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. (emphasis added)
Cutting to the chase (from the PowerPoint slides accompanying the release):
Instead of adjusting the poorly sited station trends downward to the levels of the well located stations, the well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends. The “official” trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.
No result is too ridiculous as long as it helps The Cause, I guess.
Watts included a handy graph of the impact that can be used to beat warmists over the head (metaphorically of course).
Read the whole thing. Also, be sure to heed James Delingpole's advice and resist the urge to gloat.