Natcore Technology Inc NTCXF

Reply to tinman15

[rai19]

I am familiar with the time of observation reason for some of the adjustments. I could cut and paste from some of the complex and technical discussions on the matter but that would serve no purpose.Valid or not valid it introduced opportunity for insertion of guesswork and bias. But that's not all that's done to the temperature data. Many tricks are employed that most people would not be aware of.
Several years ago the temperature stations used to determine the computer modeled average temp of the world were reduced from about 6000 to about 1500. In the process the ratio of stations closer to the equator was increased. Stations fron higher latitudes or higher altitudes were reduced. In one go temperature was increased by 2 or 3 tenths of a degree.
Then they use extrapolation. For instance, Bolivia is a high altitude country with no official temp recording station. So they assign a temp from the nearest station hundreds of miles away from sea level at the coast of Peru. They input a temp for Bolivia into the computer several degrees warmer than reality.
Then they just flat out make up data. Large portions of the earth have no temp recording stations so the computer just assigns them a temp according to what it thinks the average temp should be. And guess who programs the computer.
Then they homogenize data. If a station shows cooler temps than surrounding stations, even if there are valid geograghical reasons for this temp, they alter it to conform to the other stations.
Why do they need to do this? Well, you see, the warming meme is actually based on very flimsy science. It starts with speculation and an assumption of how co2 behaves in the atmosphere. This assumption  has never been validated and there are many counter arguments but it is programmed into the computer climate model simulations to give the desired outcomes. That's it. That's the sum of the so-called science. So the warmists desperately need the temperature plot line to show a continual upward slope to validate their narrative. That's all they've got.
So when they say that 2016 was the hottest year on record by one hundredth of a degree this is plain rediculous. It is impossible to determine the average temp to a hundredth of a degree, in fact even to a few tenths of a degree. And with all of the "adjustments", homogenizations, and made-up data, we have a completely dubious data set.
In fact, isn't it interesting that the adjustments always go in one direction; cooling the past and warming the present. It is just not believable.