[Pants-of-dog]

That fails to support the claim that the vast majority of funding comes through a few government sources.

[BeesKnee5]

This year so far is second warmest since 1949

[Truth To Power]

That fails to support the claim that the vast majority of funding comes through a few government sources.

No, it establishes that the vast majority of funding comes from ONE government source: the US federal government.

[Truth To Power]

This year so far is second warmest since 1949

So what? By 1949, temperatures had already fallen sharply from the highs around 1940 -- let alone 940. Classic cherry picking of the comparison period. Disgraceful.

[BeesKnee5]

So what? By 1949, temperatures had already fallen sharply from the highs around 1940 -- let alone 940. Classic cherry picking of the comparison period. Disgraceful.

Can we have your evidence please. This isn't cherry picking, it's the point at which NCEP research began gathering data after WW2.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it establishes that the vast majority of funding comes from ONE government source: the US federal government.

No, it does not say that, nor does it say that all federal finding comes through a single source.

For example, it does not even mention funding for climate research outside the USA.

[Rancid]

Learn to swim

[Truth To Power]

No, it does not say that,

Yes it does.

nor does it say that all federal finding comes through a single source.

Yes it does: the federal government.

For example, it does not even mention funding for climate research outside the USA.

Doesn't matter. They all get their temp data from NASA/NOAA.

[Truth To Power]

Can we have your evidence please.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs ... e-records/

This isn't cherry picking, it's the point at which NCEP research began gathering data after WW2.

"Gathering" data?? No. They are just makin' $#!+ up. The heating map you posted shows vast red and orange blotches in remote areas where they indisputably did not have any instruments in 1949, and probably still don't. Your "data" are not observations at all but merely "estimates" based on failed and absurd climate models.

[BeesKnee5]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs ... e-records/

Is this supposed to be evidence of your claim that by 1949 temperatures had fallen sharply from around 1940?

It shows a difference of 0.15C and that the average around 1940s being 0.6C lower than the last two decades. No year in the 1940s is higher than any of the last thirty years.

"Gathering" data?? No. They are just makin' $#!+ up. The heating map you posted shows vast red and orange blotches in remote areas where they indisputably did not have any instruments in 1949, and probably still don't. Your "data" are not observations at all but merely "estimates" based on failed and absurd climate models.

If I had shared HadCrut or GissTemp or UAH data it would have a different start date simply because of when gathering started. That's not cherry picking, cherry picking is when you selectively take bits of the data produced to falsely make a claim.

There is only one modification in the NCEP data. 1948-1957 recordings were taken at 3am, 9am, 3pm,9pm. From 1958 the readings are taken 6am, 12 am, 6pm, 12 pm.
So differences are assumed based on the typical change if temp between these times.
If you were really interested then you can examine the raw data if you have concerns

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/d ... mit=Search

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Everyone can read the quoted text and see that you are wrong.

In fact, it does not even mention the number of funding sources or how funding goes through a small number of sources.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Everyone can read the quoted text and see that you are wrong.

In fact, it does not even mention the number of funding sources or how funding goes through a small number of sources.

No, Pants. Everyone (except you) knows the US federal government is one funding source.

[Truth To Power]

Is this supposed to be evidence of your claim that by 1949 temperatures had fallen sharply from around 1940?

It is evidence.

It shows a difference of 0.15C

No, it does not. You are either not reading the graph correctly, or you are lying about what it clearly says. I invite all readers to confirm for themselves that the graph clearly shows temperatures plummeted by ~0.4C in just seven years from 1943-1950.

and that the average around 1940s being 0.6C lower than the last two decades. No year in the 1940s is higher than any of the last thirty years.

That's a separate issue. I knew you wouldn't accept an accurate temperature dataset; but in the event, you wouldn't even accept one that supports anti-CO2 hysteria because it proves me right about the cherry-picked start date of your other dataset.

If I had shared HadCrut or GissTemp or UAH data it would have a different start date simply because of when gathering started. That's not cherry picking, cherry picking is when you selectively take bits of the data produced to falsely make a claim.

That's what you did.

There is only one modification in the NCEP data. 1948-1957 recordings were taken at 3am, 9am, 3pm,9pm. From 1958 the readings are taken 6am, 12 am, 6pm, 12 pm.

Garbage.

[BeesKnee5]

No, it does not. You are either not reading the graph correctly, or you are lying about what it clearly says. I invite all readers to confirm for themselves that the graph clearly shows temperatures plummeted by ~0.4C in just seven years from 1943-1950.

And that my friends is a cherry pick.

Take two years that are the extremes and claim they represent a typical average for the period.

That's a separate issue. I knew you wouldn't accept an accurate temperature dataset; but in the event, you wouldn't even accept one that supports anti-CO2 hysteria because it proves me right about the cherry-picked start date of your other dataset.

I completely accept the temperature dataset and I'm glad you've come round to seeing the data as accurate.

What I don't accept is your hypocrisy of using two cherry picked years .

Garbage.

That sums up your claim pretty accurately.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

The US federal government has many different departments and committees dealing with climate change. Each have their own budgets and mandates, as do the groups that organize these smaller groups.

Here is a webpage explaining how they are linked:
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_ ... ue_summary

Nowhere does it indicate or imply that all these groups, and the groups they support, receive money from a single source.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

The US federal government has many different departments and committees dealing with climate change. Each have their own budgets and mandates, as do the groups that organize these smaller groups.

So what? They are all part of the US federal government. You are trying to pretend that because there are 200M federal taxpayers in the USA, that's 200M different funding sources. It's not.

Here is a webpage explaining how they are linked:
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_ ... ue_summary

Nowhere does it indicate or imply that all these groups, and the groups they support, receive money from a single source.

But they all do receive money from a single source: the US federal government. Why are you pretending not to know that fact? Your pretense that the US federal government is not a single funding source is absurd, puerile, and disingenuous.

[Truth To Power]

And that my friends is a cherry pick.

No, child, that is the period in question. You made $#!+ up about what about what the graph plainly showed, and I called you on your fabrication. Simple.

Take two years that are the extremes and claim they represent a typical average for the period.

I didn't claim they represented the typical average for the period. You just made that up, like you do a lot of your other claims. I stated, correctly, that temperature had plummeted in the years before the 1949 start of the dataset you cited.

I completely accept the temperature dataset and I'm glad you've come round to seeing the data as accurate.

Then why did you falsely claim that temperature had only declined by 0.15C in the years before the start of the dataset you cited, showing it was cherry-picked?

What I don't accept is your hypocrisy of using two cherry picked years .

Huh?? The SECOND of those years was the cherry-picked one YOU cited in YOUR claim! Hello?? And I cited the first one to show why your claim was cherry-picked. Duh.

That sums up your claim pretty accurately.

<yawn> Every year that passes with CO2 continuing to rise more or less exponentially while global temperature increase is either derisory or self-evidently continuing not to cause any significant problem, let alone an "emergency" or "crisis," is an additional proof that I am right and all the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd are wrong. I will continue to be proved right by actual physical events, no matter how many fabricated, manipulated, and fraudulent graphs, maps and numbers you or anyone else may post.

[Pants-of-dog]

So what? They are all part of the US federal government. You are trying to pretend that because there are 200M federal taxpayers in the USA, that's 200M different funding sources. It's not.

But they all do receive money from a single source: the US federal government. Why are you pretending not to know that fact? Your pretense that the US federal government is not a single funding source is absurd, puerile, and disingenuous.

If your conspiracy theory requires the entire federal government to be in on it, and please note that this still only deals with US climatologists and does not explain how foreign climatologists are also kept in line, then your conspiracy theory fails because of the sheer number of people needed to keep the secret.

[BeesKnee5]

No, child, that is the period in question. You made $#!+ up about what about what the graph plainly showed, and I called you on your fabrication. Simple.

The clue is in the word period. That's not the difference between two individual years, is the change in averages over several years.
Your choice of 1943 instead of looking at the average of a reasonable period of time shows your fallacy. 1935-1945 was not 0.4 C higher than 1950-5.

I didn't claim they represented the typical average for the period. You just made that up, like you do a lot of your other claims. I stated, correctly, that temperature had plummeted in the years before the 1949 start of the dataset you cited.

Actually you said it had plummeted from the temperatures around 1940 and have now made a fool of yourself by cherry picking 1943 .

Then why did you falsely claim that temperature had only declined by 0.15C in the years before the start of the dataset you cited, showing it was cherry-picked?

The claim isn't false, it's based on your original assertion that you appear to have forgotten.

Huh?? The SECOND of those years was the cherry-picked one YOU cited in YOUR claim! Hello?? And I cited the first one to show why your claim was cherry-picked. Duh.

I never mentioned 1950, the average temperature around 1950 is clearly what you originally had a beef about. To show how foolish your point is, the diffence between 1950 and 1952 is almost as large as 1943 -1950, maybe I should cherry pick 1952 and claim a less than 0.05C change? Obviously I wouldn't do that as that would be as bad as your cherry picking of 1943 and 1950.

<yawn> Every year that passes with CO2 continuing to rise more or less exponentially while global temperature increase is either derisory or self-evidently continuing not to cause any significant problem, let alone an "emergency" or "crisis," is an additional proof that I am right and all the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd are wrong. I will continue to be proved right by actual physical events, no matter how many fabricated, manipulated, and fraudulent graphs, maps and numbers you or anyone else may post.

You might want to look at the chart you shared that you told me was accurate only a few posts ago and ties in with the NCEP data.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

You also ended up saying Solanki fabricated his data when I pointed out that his measurements of increased solar activity show no corresponding spike in average temperatures.

Or you were saying that the graph you presented as evidence of a trendless 69 year cycle is fabricated.

You were not clear on which.