"Tampered" indicates intent, versus "adjusted for reasons we explain for all to see." I don't believe intent to deceive is in evidence. The Climategate emails do not do that.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
It's difficult to believe that temps PRIOR to a given date are adjusted down, and those AFTER are adjusted up. The graph showing how the temp adjustments correlate with CO2 increases...would love to hear an explanation of that. (And none of this is proof!)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @James_Beckmeyer @SteveSGoddard and
If it is hard to believe (and it is), the usual explanation is that it isn't true. For nearly every skeptical claim, including this one, the normal response is that your facts are wrong.
5 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @James_Beckmeyer and
My code is simple to understand, open source and has been out there and looked at by many people for years. It performs a simple average of all USHCN temperature data, grouped per year.
3 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
I've already admitted you are 100% persuasive when viewed without the critical responses to your arguments.
12 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
Scott, read Mann’s climategate code. That proves fraud and intent. Non-programmers can’t understand, but you can. It’s a date based exponential warming factor applied to every reading after a given date. If you fed in random numbers instead of temperatures it would show warming!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dieter75 @SteveSGoddard and
I have heard that claim and consider it nonsense. Sort of like saying a unicorn is President of the United States but no one has yet noticed.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
It’s not a claim, it’s fact. I know this because I read the code myself back when it was released as part of the climategate emails. How is code that was leaked a “unicorn”? Looking just now produced this:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dieter75 @SteveSGoddard and
Why can you see the unicorn so clearly but climate scientists cannot?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
I literally linked you to the code, dude. And this vague “climate scientists” is a thought terminating cliche. I could be saying “computer scientists reviewed the code. Why do you keep saying they are wrong?” Prove they didn’t! There’s a unicorn.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You linked to something incomprehensible to 99.9999% of the population, including me.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.