If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hide the Decline)   So it was the HOTTEST YEAR EVAR in 2012? Yeah, about that. Don't forget to carry the one this time   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, State of the Climate, National Climatic Data Center, CONUS Tavg, 48 contiguous states, data sets, temperatures, Global Tavg, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

5474 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 02:39:29 PM
Oh bah, first part there is to DoBeDoBeDo
 
2013-01-09 02:43:09 PM

They've been fudging the data for a couple decades now.



stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com

What man-made global warming really looks like
 
2013-01-09 02:49:29 PM
dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs
 
2013-01-09 02:50:49 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs


Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg
 
2013-01-09 02:53:41 PM

Zafler: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg


Oh look, Zafler has his finger on the refresh button. Let's all read his witty replies to literally every post now!
 
2013-01-09 02:59:44 PM

Pinner: I'd stick it in their CONUS.


The CONUS is unremarkable.
 
2013-01-09 03:01:16 PM

CheetahOlivetti: Pinner: I'd stick it in their CONUS.

The CONUS is unremarkable.


It is until the oil hits the CONUS.
 
2013-01-09 03:28:23 PM

thurstonxhowell: hawcian: ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?

Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?

He got his GED, picked up a sweet adult bookstore janitor job, and wanted to lord that over him. Y'know, stick it to one of them college boys.



don't be silly, the floors there wax themselves!
 
2013-01-09 03:28:32 PM
Keep the heat coming! It's going to +6 celcuis on Sunday. In Canada.

Sure, my igloo is going to need a bit of work when it drops below freezing again, but... +6! In the middle of January!
 
2013-01-09 03:49:54 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind

Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
[t0.gstatic.com image 805x600]


Kinda like your Boobies.
 
2013-01-09 03:50:33 PM

Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.


Metric System?
 
2013-01-09 03:53:39 PM

Farty McPooPants: Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.

Metric System?


Nah. The satellites they used in the 30s saved all their data in morse code.
 
2013-01-09 04:43:50 PM

Malcolm_Sex: Zafler: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg

Oh look, Zafler has his finger on the refresh button. Let's all read his witty replies to literally every post now!


He's right Zafler, you're kinda being a dick and nobody likes an arsehole.
 
2013-01-09 04:48:29 PM

Zafler: Malcolm_Sex: "GOM only green energy by 2014"!

When have you ever seen this proposed by non-whack jobs? Most everyone that has even a basic understanding of the underlying science has been proposing investing in alternative energy sources that are not fossil-fuel derived, but not expecting it immediately.

One that I know has been posted here multiple times is Princeton's Stabilization Wedges.


Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?

Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."


Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.
 
2013-01-09 05:11:11 PM
What we got here is an argument from verbosity.

keep spraying derp that in the long run doesn't help the case he is trying to prove in hopes that people get confused and bored with his rambling and incessant yammering and just take a couple plotting points on the graph as proof simply to avoid the headache of reading such a long-winded and needlessly complex argument that really does nothing to support the position he supports and etc. etc. etc.
 
2013-01-09 05:23:22 PM
also, just for poops and giggles, I wonder if the person weighed each month equally when doing his maths, not correcting for the small, but not insignificant, difference in number of days that populate the months. I'm too lazy to do that all myself, but I wonder how large a difference there is if you actually weight each months avg. temp based on percentage of days out of the year (which would be a range from 7.92% up to 8.46% instead of equal 12ths (8.33% of the year).

I sincerely wonder if that's where his .7 degree difference comes from
 
2013-01-09 05:24:24 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: Zafler: Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.


Whether or not Zafler is a dick is irrelevant. Dobedobedo's post was the equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."
 
2013-01-09 06:36:00 PM
ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:20 PM

fritton: Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.


Speak for yourself, derpity derper.
 
2013-01-09 07:05:17 PM

Krieghund: Ohlookabutterfly: Zafler: Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.

Whether or not Zafler is a dick is irrelevant. Dobedobedo's post was the equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."



I'm Canadian so the vote republican part makes no sense to me thus I have no opinion on that part. The part I do find relevant is where he states that those here who believe in and thus feel guilty for man made global warming aren't actually doing anything about it other than try and make the rest of us feel the same guilt.

As has been said, I barely have enough cognitive power to breath and walk at the same time so I have no idea if we are the cause. I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect. Also, the very second I hear and believe some of these gw cuItists when they say they have done something to actually stop gw, like not drive a farking car you hypocrites, or find out how many products in your home come from the oilsands bitumen and stop using them, then I might take their opinions seriously.

Also, Zafler is a total dick.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:56 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: fritton: Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.

Speak for yourself, derpity derper.


So you're saying *don't* listen to the scientists on science? Or that you're one of the few scientists hanging out on Fark?
 
2013-01-09 07:18:31 PM

fritton: ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.


considering the person who wrote the article in the link is not a scientist, I find this remark funny. It's even funnier when you consider the following: Link
 
2013-01-09 07:20:51 PM

Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.


Like the physical value of 38 degrees isn't the same as it was then?
WTF?

You're telling me the sample set is too small to be able to measure the change?

Damn. Sixty-nine comments here in a warmer thread.
Have the AGW people all been cut from payroll post election?
 
2013-01-09 07:23:01 PM

I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.


Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.
 
2013-01-09 07:27:44 PM

msupf: fritton: ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.

considering the person who wrote the article in the link is not a scientist, I find this remark funny. It's even funnier when you consider the following: Link


Exactly. If I want sound discussion on theology I'll go to a preacher, priest, reverend, shaman or grand poobah. If I want insights in screaming insanity I'll consult with a clinical psychologist (or read Free Republic). If I want to get a credible opinion on a complex scientific phenomenon then I'll go find a scientist in that field of study.

What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?
 
2013-01-09 07:32:18 PM

Malcolm_Sex: DoBeDoBeDo: WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age

Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.

Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


You're both stupid.

If that's what you hear on the subject then get your hearing checked.
 
2013-01-09 07:34:55 PM

fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.


So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed? People are liars just as much as they are internet know-it-alls and having a group of people who are skeptical and don't believe everything they see on t.v. question what some people call fact is a good thing. This helps to keep corruption from becoming rampant, and snake oil salesman from becoming successful.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:36 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.

So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed? People are liars just as much as they are internet know-it-alls and having a group of people who are skeptical and don't believe everything they see on t.v. question what some people call fact is a good thing. This helps to keep corruption from becoming rampant, and snake oil salesman from becoming successful.


The *scientists* doing staged studies for industry groups might, but no.. the vast vast majority of scientists working on university and publicly funded grants would not "suddenly be unemployed". Their studies on blooming patterns of particular plants, ocean migration routes of certain species and so on would continue exactly like normal. Their results would continue to get published and peer reviewed exactly like normal. There isn't some vast conspiracy out there where fake results of parallel studies are getting published and NOT torn apart by the peer review process.

It's this line of nonsensical, completely ignorant "reasoning" that gives cover to deniers who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They can simply claim "Money and Politics is corrupting the process and coincidentally my uninformed opinion is the TRUTH despite what the scientists are saying" when it's not true at all and in fact would require *enormous* conspiracy and a complete, fundamental breakdown in academia to be credible at all.
There is nothing wrong with being "skeptical" but we have a system in place that is automatically, intrinsically skeptical to start with, and the vast, vast majority of "skeptics" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They quite literally have absolutely no reference frame to judge their "skepticism". They have no training, background or education in the fundamental basics of the field.

It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.
 
2013-01-09 08:13:27 PM

fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.


Yep. For every one scientist that "lies" about climate change, there are a thousand Lord Bugeyes that routinely say that the climate scientists say exactly the opposite of what they actually say, and are doing so for far more money than even the biggest climatology grants.
 
2013-01-09 08:20:31 PM

fritton: What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?


It ain't just climate science anymore. Many of the same people who believe the Watts and Moncktons of the world also believe that the Bible is literally true, despite all evidence to the contrary. A few believe that mercury causes autism and there's loads of it in vaccines, despite the fact that there has not been anything resembling mercury in vaccines for at least two decades and the "scientific link" between them and autism was fraudulent. And plenty also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the current president is a Kenyan atheist Muslim with a racist pastor. And maybe the most damaging lie they believe is that trickle-down supply-side economics works.

The only time these people ever care about "facts" is when they conform to their anti-science, anti-freedom, racist, homophobic, corporatist, paranoid delusions, which is why so many believe the lies being spoon-fed them. And they're proud they believe these lies, even when it's pointed out that they're lies. (And at that point, they make the transition from merely being mistaken to full-blown liars themselves.)
 
2013-01-09 08:50:18 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs


You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.
 
2013-01-09 09:15:18 PM

IlGreven: fritton: What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

It ain't just climate science anymore. Many of the same people who believe the Watts and Moncktons of the world also believe that the Bible is literally true, despite all evidence to the contrary. A few believe that mercury causes autism and there's loads of it in vaccines, despite the fact that there has not been anything resembling mercury in vaccines for at least two decades and the "scientific link" between them and autism was fraudulent. And plenty also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the current president is a Kenyan atheist Muslim with a racist pastor. And maybe the most damaging lie they believe is that trickle-down supply-side economics works.

The only time these people ever care about "facts" is when they conform to their anti-science, anti-freedom, racist, homophobic, corporatist, paranoid delusions, which is why so many believe the lies being spoon-fed them. And they're proud they believe these lies, even when it's pointed out that they're lies. (And at that point, they make the transition from merely being mistaken to full-blown liars themselves.)



Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?
 
2013-01-09 09:28:28 PM

DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?


I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!
 
2013-01-09 09:45:19 PM

Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


You're in the Twenty-First Century.
Where we'd have flying cars, if we hadn't run out of oil, food, water, and sow ears, before we died out.
 
2013-01-09 09:45:49 PM
It will be too late when we finally take climate change seriously...Greed and arrogance will assure that it is,
 
2013-01-09 09:48:25 PM

LavenderWolf: You're both stupid.

If that's what you hear on the subject then get your hearing checked.


Hey, who tried to teach the Democrat how to type?
 
2013-01-09 09:51:32 PM
Yes, I am absolutely sure this is an impartial and fair look at the data by a third party. Pay no attention to the fact that their store is stocked full of anti-science crap and they openly mock NOAA.
 
2013-01-09 10:16:06 PM

fritton: DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?

I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!


imageshack.us
 
2013-01-09 10:23:34 PM

DesertDemonWY: fritton: DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?

I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!

[imageshack.us image 448x336]


So do the mod trolls always use totalfark badges?
 
2013-01-09 11:07:23 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind

Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
[t0.gstatic.com image 805x600]

Kinda like your Boobies.


It's so sad when you start off with name-calling.

Are you 12?
 
2013-01-09 11:30:12 PM

xanadian: FTFA: Highlighted in yellow is the CONUS average temperature, which is the data I was after.

Well, that's great, Sherlock. You've proven that CONUS Warming is a myth. GLOBAL warming, on the other hand....



He hasn't even done that.

www.earthgauge.net

/oblig graphiness
 
2013-01-10 03:10:59 AM
SuperT:
can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, yes, we can. However, the data from the satellites are public, and so are the methodologies to adjust and calculate them. This puts an unreasonable restraint on the collectors of data, who need to be able to "adjust" the data to better fit the hypothesis which is bringing in the money. Difficulty: The satellite record only starts in 1979. But, here it is:

www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-01-10 03:17:57 AM
IlGreven:
Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.

I guess when you're peddling lies, it helps muddy the water to call anyone with a different story a liar. Now, HERE'S lying:

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-10 03:32:21 AM
YoungLochinvar:
Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Yes, I do, and you should, as well. Here's why: It was not "BEST" that made the conclusions -- it was Mueller. And he made his conclusions when the data of the project said something else. When he made his presentation, he left off all the data from 2000 on, and then claimed that temperatures were still rising as they were in the 1990s. The data he left out prove that to be a lie. The co-leader of the BEST team also called him out for scientific fraud. You have to cut him some slack, though -- he just got turned, and didn't think to change the DATA as well as the graph. He left the entire data set there, including the part that showed him to be lying.

HERE is the graph, AND the missing data plotted the same way as the submitted slide:


blog.independent.org
 
2013-01-10 03:38:48 AM

GeneralJim: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?
Yes, yes, we can. However, the data from the satellites are public, and so are the methodologies to adjust and calculate them. This puts an unreasonable restraint on the collectors of data, who need to be able to "adjust" the data to better fit the hypothesis which is bringing in the money. Difficulty: The satellite record only starts in 1979. But, here it is:

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x490]



Which, as you know, is a pretty good overall match with those other temperature records you're so wary of:

www.woodfortrees.org
Plus, of course the fact that for GISTEMP, for example, the source data and source code are publicly available, has been been replicated, and, as in the graph above, corroborated.

Again, your conspiracy theories only work if you keep yourself intentionally and actively ignorant.
 
2013-01-10 03:41:00 AM

GeneralJim: IlGreven: Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.
I guess when you're peddling lies, it helps muddy the water to call anyone with a different story a liar. Now, HERE'S lying:

[i44.tinypic.com image 643x421]


Actually, I have an even better example of someone being proven lying, right here.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:38 AM

GeneralJim: YoungLochinvar:
Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Yes, I do, and you should, as well. Here's why: It was not "BEST" that made the conclusions -- it was Mueller. And he made his conclusions when the data of the project said something else. When he made his presentation, he left off all the data from 2000 on


A flat out falsehood on your part. Not only is said range included in the paper you're probably referencing, it's right there in the graph you yourself posted.


GeneralJim: and then claimed that temperatures were still rising as they were in the 1990s. The data he left out prove that to be a lie. The co-leader of the BEST team also called him out for scientific fraud. You have to cut him some slack, though -- he just got turned, and didn't think to change the DATA as well as the graph. He left the entire data set there, including the part that showed him to be lying.

HERE is the graph, AND the missing data plotted the same way as the submitted slide:


That graph you posted was exactly the one that inspired the following animation. Remember this:
i575.photobucket.com
It's even been posted already this thread. The second panel in the graph you're posting is the spurious trend represented by the far right blue line in the animation. As you're well aware, such a small period of time can be misleading given the amount of short-term variability at a scale other than the one at which the phenomenon of interest operates.


If you don't wish to accept this reasoning or evidence, you could always just listen to this guy:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


One would think just 10 years would be even worse.
 
2013-01-10 04:24:05 AM
fritton:
What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

Mostly, it's the reasonably large number of scientists who have been caught in scientific fraud. And, by "large number" I mean about four, which is a VERY large number of corrupt scientists. The Hadley CRU and NASA GISS data sets, when audited by the same software that caught Bernie Madoff (sp?) cooking the books, shows a very high likelihood that the data have been manufactured. Phil Jones has admitted fraud on his part, and that of Michael Mann. And, Michael Mann has published studies which even a "lay person" can see are fraudulent. Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Part of it is also the practice of cherry-picking dates so that the data make the AGW hypothesis look good. Look at what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years. Can't you see that it HAS to be warming now? Note that the data in the block on the right are the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see. That's misleading. Observe:


i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-10 04:38:59 AM

GeneralJim: fritton:
What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

Mostly, it's the reasonably large number of scientists who have been caught in scientific fraud. And, by "large number" I mean about four, which is a VERY large number of corrupt scientists. The Hadley CRU and NASA GISS data sets, when audited by the same software that caught Bernie Madoff (sp?) cooking the books, shows a very high likelihood that the data have been manufactured.



As me (and others) have demonstrated to you before, this is a falsehood. At least that means I can copy-and-paste the reasons why this is so with little effort.

What you're referring to is a chi-square test of goodness-of-fit to an equal distribution of trailing digits. The source he uses to back this up is from a guy named David Stockwell. A deviation from said equal distribution does exist. However, GeneralJim mistakenly believes this is somehow incontrovertible evidence of fraud. This is not the case. As Stockwell himself writes in that very same link:

Steven: "Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating." That is right and I have said that. there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected

And from his comments elsewhere (new window):

Please note I haven't claimed of manipulation at this stage. I want to take a closer look at where in the file the deviations are the greatest. Its possible it has something to do with low
numbers too, as the format used of 0.01C results in single digits around 1940, but two significant digits elsewhere. I don't know at this stage.


More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.


in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

In fact, if we apply the exact same analysis that the author in that link used (I have some severe reservations about certain aspects of it, but that's a separate argument), and apply, it, say, to the monthly HadCET data set that GeneralJim seem to be fond of, you come up with the following:

i54.tinypic.com

According to him, this would be enough evidence to suggest that the HadCET record is "human-generated". This is not the case and the actual explanation has do with the structure of the underlying data (in this case, rounding).
 
2013-01-10 05:09:40 AM

GeneralJim: Phil Jones has admitted fraud on his part, and that of Michael Mann.


This is yet another falsehood. No such admission exists.


GeneralJim: And, Michael Mann has published studies which even a "lay person" can see are fraudulent.


Given your track record, especially in regards to falsely representing research, you'll have to provide more than your word.


GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.


Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.


GeneralJim: Part of it is also the practice of cherry-picking dates so that the data make the AGW hypothesis look good. Look at what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years.


Indeed - if you wish to see if this reconstruction is REALLY different from others, you should actually plot them on a common baseline with the others. This is what it REALLY looks like:

www.skepticalscience.com
It turns out that "what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years" is pretty much the same as what others have been showing.


GeneralJim: Can't you see that it HAS to be warming now? Note that the data in the block on the right are the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see.


Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?


GeneralJim: That's misleading. Observe:


Yes, we've observed what you've been saying, and yes, it is misleading.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report