By Mario Cuellar
It is almost always the same. All the data points towards the same, less ice in glaciers globally and with the "cherry picking" they choose a glacier that increases in thickness, the Earth loses ice as a whole and they say that in Antarctica it increases (until now), than if a polar bear population increases locally in Canada, they "adjust" it to say that they increase in all places and to finish if the data set with global temperature shows that it increases they choose the one that shows the least warming and they replicate and replicate that there is no warming in the last 25 years.
When a scientific article appears that dismantles their latest strategy, they hide the information about it and dedicate themselves to spreading a story from a British tabloid that a former scientist has allegedly said that global temperature data is being manipulated (1). Luckily there are people like potholer54 (2) on YouTube who are dedicated to tracking the comments of these blogs, media or think tanks and discovering their falsehoods in their videos, based on published and reviewed scientific articles and looking for if a scientist has said such a thing or not. Behind that name on YouTube is the British journalist, Peter Hadfield.
In your latest video (3), I come across a mention of a scientific article published in May last year in the Journal of Climate entitled: Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment (4). Your reading is most interesting and reveals why for a long time they have not shown that graph again in their "skeptical" blogs. I put, as I have already explained, skeptics in quotation marks, because they really deny the scientific evidence based on magical beliefs, not to call them global warming deniers.
Since it could not be that almost all measurements on the ground made by NASA, NOAA, the British Met-Office or the Japanese Meteorological Agency were wrong and that those made by satellite were correct, the researchers found that the RSS It did not have adequate precision and they produced a new data set that showed a substantial increase in global warming. To do this, they used alternative methods to optimize the information from the satellite measurements. Previous versions had used a daytime climatology derived from the outputs of the general circulation model to remove the effects of accumulating local time measures.
In a manipulative effort, the "skeptics" came to say that this system was the most reliable because it was not influenced by local effects such as cities and heat islands, but now that the external errors have been corrected, let it be said that they made the RSS graph, they are not accused of having deceived them by containing errors ...
Now seriously, once the adjustment is made, the warming almost doubled from 0.078K to 0.125K per decade. Curiously, the authors say exactly the opposite of what the "skeptics" had been saying: "There is a substantial increase in warming, particularly after 1998." Why are they going to rectify, apologize and tell the truth serving such particular economic interests?