How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[David Rodale]

Watts statistical analysis has magically become skillful? D'Aleos? Has he updated his blog with new posts that point out how misguided his earlier attempts were?

Oh, he hasn't?

Wouldn't it be nice if Tamino didn't filter substantive posts disagreeing with him?

But he relies on people like you (sheep) to believe everything he says is true and accurate without questioning. Baa baa!

The question to Alric is extended to you; why did NCDC invite Anthony Watts to give a presentation? Wouldn't Tamino have been a better choice seeing how he so vehemently defends the current status of the surface station network? If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm?

 

[mhaze]

Wouldn't it be nice if Tamino didn't filter substantive posts disagreeing with him? .....why did NCDC invite Anthony Watts to give a presentation? Wouldn't Tamino have been a better choice seeing how he so vehemently defends the current status of the surface station network? If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm?

Wait...

You mean NCDC didn't invite Tamino?

BWAHAHABWAHAHA!!!

 

[a_unique_person]

Wouldn't it be nice if Tamino didn't filter substantive posts disagreeing with him?

But he relies on people like you (sheep) to believe everything he says is true and accurate without questioning. Baa baa!

The question to Alric is extended to you; why did NCDC invite Anthony Watts to give a presentation? Wouldn't Tamino have been a better choice seeing how he so vehemently defends the current status of the surface station network? If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm?

Tamino doesn't pretend to be any more than he is, a blogger on the internet.

 

[mhaze]

Now isn’t this interesting. Despite ridicule from the warmers here, antagonists such as Tamino, Eli Rabbet and the rest of the Hansen sycophants defending the GISS infinite “adjustments”/ “estimations”, the attacks on Anthony Watts have now been rendered impotent. His efforts at http://www.surfacestations.org were not in vain. Sorry to break the bad news

Snippets from Watt’s blog:
Road Trip Update: What I’m doing Wednesday and Thursday
Road trip Update: Day 1 at NCDC
Day 2 at NCDC and Press Release: NOAA to modernize USHCN

What does this implies regarding the believability of the Jones/Hansen historical temperature series relied on by the IPCC, and thus the credibility of the entire set of conclusions of the 2007 AR4 report?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What does this implies regarding the believability of the Jones/Hansen historical temperature series relied on by the IPCC, and thus the credibility of the entire set of conclusions of the 2007 AR4 report?

Absolutely nothing. If you get a new computer, does that mean that everything you did before then was garbage?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm?

Why does anyone modernize anything?

Even the Spencer/Christy MSU data showed that the atmosphere is warming. Trying to deflect the issue by getting into personalities seems to be your only available strategy.

Why is the sea level rising?

 

[Pixel42]

Absolutely nothing. If you get a new computer, does that mean that everything you did before then was garbage?

The sceptics' response to this excellent news is very revealing, isn't it? "We're getting more accurate instruments, so we will no longer need to allow for the known inaccuracies of the current instruments" is read as "we've been fiddling the data"

 

[fsol]

Wouldn't it be nice if Tamino didn't filter substantive posts disagreeing with him?

But he relies on people like you (sheep) to believe everything he says is true and accurate without questioning. Baa baa!

The question to Alric is extended to you; why did NCDC invite Anthony Watts to give a presentation? Wouldn't Tamino have been a better choice seeing how he so vehemently defends the current status of the surface station network? If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm?

I asked you before to show where Tamino was wrong about Watts and D'Aleo. You didn't do it then and, surprise! You still haven't done it. Now you want me to answer your stupid question? Please...

 

[mhaze]

Absolutely nothing. If you get a new computer, does that mean that everything you did before then was garbage?

Gettinq new software and new sensors is different than changing a computer.

Even the Spencer/Christy MSU data showed that the atmosphere is warming. Trying to deflect the issue by getting into personalities seems to be your only available strategy.

How much is temperature rising, and where? Since when, exactly? Are the measurements accurate enough to formulate policy on AGW based on those measurements? If an error is made in formulating policy, the public good is what is damaged. This happened with ethanol, where the platform was rammed through and the skeptics were not listened to.

Why is the sea level rising?
No question that in a decade or two we'll have a pretty good idea of how much and why the sea level is rising, but the evidence is inconclusive on both counts right now. So again, what does "the sea level is rising" imply today, if anything?

:
The sceptics' response to this excellent news is very revealing, isn't it? "We're getting more accurate instruments, so we will no longer need to allow for the known inaccuracies of the current instruments" is read as "we've been fiddling the data"

Are the fiddlers unbiased?

If there's nothing wrong with the way Hansen et al "adjusts" the data, why is NOAA modernizing HCN? Hmm? I asked you before to show where Tamino was wrong about Watts and D'Aleo.

You seem to be implying here that NCDC made a serious error in ignoring the "importance of Tamino's work".

Care to substantiate that?

 

[David Rodale]

I asked you before to show where Tamino was wrong about Watts and D'Aleo. You didn't do it then and, surprise! You still haven't done it. Now you want me to answer your stupid question? Please...

I provided you a link to Basil's response to Tamino's criticisms. If that wasn't good enough for you, too bad.

As for D'Aleo, I'm assuming it is concerning his CO2/temp graph. As Tamino is famous for and why everything he says must be filtered and parsed, if you'd bother reading the blog entries, you'd notice Leif Svalgaard chimes in and places Tamino in a difficult position because it exposes Tamino for what he does all the time, that being twisting the facts beyond recognition to fit his equivalent twisted views. Svalgaard does not like D'Aleo's graph, yet he also correctly points out Tamino is using a scaling to force the CO2 to conform to the temperature, which is precisely what I've pointed out on several occasions in this forum; it is incorrect and deceptive. Tamino accuses D'Aleo of cherry picking (actually lying as the blog title implies) the last ten years (which BTW clearly shows zero correlation between CO2/dT). Whether this 10 year time scale is pertinent to climate change at large is debatable, but the anti-correlation is there and the reason why it is there should be explained.

Because of Svalgaard's influence, had Tamino prevented him from posting as is done to so many others, one could imagine the humiliation poured out upon Tamino in the blogosphere

Tamino is no less guilty of "perjury" than D'Aleo. He thinks he's some sort of judge and jury and whatever he says is the Last Word.

Leif Svalgaard knows the games Tamino plays. This is why Tamino is taken serious mainly by himself and the zombies who think he's an infallible source of information. The problem is Tamino causes others to spend their valuable time smacking him down because of his sleight of hand.

It's no wonder Megalodon is so confused; he's got Tamino syndrome.

Next we can examine Tamino's criticism of Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org website from last year.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

and the followup by Steve McIntyre:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1844

We can also revisit Lucia's very thorough repudiation of Tamino's calculated abuse of statistical tools, shall we?

There are no shortages of Tamino's distortions. His blog is a torture chamber of the truth.

Now here we are in April 2008 and Anthony Watts was invited by NCDC to make a presentation based on his surfacestations.org efforts and was formally recognized by none other than Dr. Thomas Karl. Tamino and his flunkies look pretty insignificant right about now wouldn't you agree?

Anthony Watts efforts were vindicated by NCDC. What was Tamino's positive contribution to science again?

Open Mind is the place for Simple Minds.

P.S. Two other examinations of the CO2/Temp relationship are here and here.

 

[Alric]

Maybe you guys should spend less time on who says what on whose blog and more time looking at the actual published research.

Just saying. It would make your life so much easier and efficient.

 

[Pipirr]

Maybe you guys should spend less time on who says what on whose blog and more time looking at the actual published research.

Just saying. It would make your life so much easier and efficient.

Alric is wise!

 

[Megalodon]

It's no wonder Megalodon is so confused; he's got Tamino syndrome.

Next we can examine Tamino's criticism of Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org website from last year.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

and the followup by Steve McIntyre:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1844

Thank you very much for reminding us all of your stupidity.

I note, for the ones who don't know, that I never brought Tamino's work to the discussion, being unaware of it until quite recently.
I should however point that the links provided by brainless show a very reasonable response from Tamino to a quite misleading pair of graphs.

But it's amusing to see this new jump to the surface stations. Quite telling also... We are going back to the old 'GW is not happening! The surface stations (in the US) are to blame!'

It's the same old us-centric conspiracy theory mentality. It doesn't matter that there are other countries, other measurments, other disciplines that all corroborate this particular set of data. The important thing is that a part of the surface stations in the US is 'compromised'.

Diamond would tell you (at least when the doctor reduces his meds) that it's all a communist plot to bring down the US to the stone age. Mhaze tends to look saner, but seems to share the same opinion. DR hops from blog to blog, grasping at the latest stupidity, in the vain hope that we'll forget the later ones. Everything goes, no matter how absurd. If it implies that GW isn't happening, old brainless will be on it like a tick.

Depressing...

 

[mhaze]

Diamond would tell you (at least when the doctor reduces his meds) that it's all a communist plot to bring down the US to the stone age. Mhaze tends to look saner, but seems to share the same opinion.

A. Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Did anyone see Democracy Now this morning? They focused on the growing world food crisis. Bolivian President Evo Morales is in NY as the keynote speaker this week at the UN Conference for Indigenous Peoples. They interviewed him and he has a clear concern about the substitution of fuel crops for food crops.

Reply by mhaze -
From his speech-
“If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system,” he said.
​

So Evo Morales agrees with Diamond. Interesting.

B. The yet-unanswered question posed politely by mhaze to Truesceptic in response to this:

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
This thread is about ... it is indeed about politics. GWS denial is not driven by science; it is driven by right-wing politics of the most despicable kind.
​

The simple question: Want to clue us in as to what "right wing politics" is of "the most despicable kind?"

Unanswered, but clearly, a preference for "left wing politics".

C. Let's consider one example of that...

Vice-President Al Gore
Third Annual Farm Journal Conference, December 1, 1998
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/farmj.html

"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be."
​

Left wing politics.
Current ethanol problem - rammed through by Pelosi and Boxer, against the advise of conservatives such as Senator Inhofe (OK). Senator Inhofe has been the subject of continual insults and ridicule on this forum. At least for his early criticism and cautions on the expanded ethanol program, it looks to me like he deserves a round of applause.

You see, Inhofe predicted the current crisis. But you can deal with it or don't, does not matter to me.

D.

DR hops from blog to blog, grasping at the latest stupidity, in the vain hope that we'll forget the later ones. Everything goes, no matter how absurd. If it implies that GW isn't happening, old brainless will be on it like a tick.

Yep, DR hops from blog to blog, suffering criticism for doing so from several here, with the intent of rebutting to the argument from FSOL, concerning....blogs and Tamino. And what does Tamino do? Criticise peer reviewed papers he considers from "deniers", while he has none of his own. Well, of course, criticize DR for that., don't criticise FSOL.

E. Pipirr has noted several times rebuttals should be published peer reviewed literature or at least published "letters" in the journals...nothing there by Tamino (and yes his real name is known).

Gullible warmers retreat to Tamino's blog to argue against published, peer reviewed articles by scientists taking objective and unbiased looks at climate, whose conclusions are not in sync with Warmlogy.

 

[Megalodon]

I see that you still have a problem understanding plain english. And I seem to have been wrong on my assessment of your sanity...

Your post is perfectly disconnected from the one that you quoted. I'm happy that you have another fetish besides Gore, but please keep it out of the public eye...

 

[mhaze]

Your post is perfectly disconnected from the one that you quoted.

Care to elaborate a bit on such a statement, would you?

 

[fsol]

I provided you a link to Basil's response to Tamino's criticisms. If that wasn't good enough for you, too bad.

As for D'Aleo, I'm assuming it is concerning his CO2/temp graph. As Tamino is famous for and why everything he says must be filtered and parsed, if you'd bother reading the blog entries, you'd notice Leif Svalgaard chimes in and places Tamino in a difficult position because it exposes Tamino for what he does all the time, that being twisting the facts beyond recognition to fit his equivalent twisted views. Svalgaard does not like D'Aleo's graph, yet he also correctly points out Tamino is using a scaling to force the CO2 to conform to the temperature, which is precisely what I've pointed out on several occasions in this forum; it is incorrect and deceptive. Tamino accuses D'Aleo of cherry picking (actually lying as the blog title implies) the last ten years (which BTW clearly shows zero correlation between CO2/dT). Whether this 10 year time scale is pertinent to climate change at large is debatable, but the anti-correlation is there and the reason why it is there should be explained.

Because of Svalgaard's influence, had Tamino prevented him from posting as is done to so many others, one could imagine the humiliation poured out upon Tamino in the blogosphere

Tamino is no less guilty of "perjury" than D'Aleo. He thinks he's some sort of judge and jury and whatever he says is the Last Word.

Leif Svalgaard knows the games Tamino plays. This is why Tamino is taken serious mainly by himself and the zombies who think he's an infallible source of information. The problem is Tamino causes others to spend their valuable time smacking him down because of his sleight of hand.

It's no wonder Megalodon is so confused; he's got Tamino syndrome.

Next we can examine Tamino's criticism of Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org website from last year.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

and the followup by Steve McIntyre:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1844

We can also revisit Lucia's very thorough repudiation of Tamino's calculated abuse of statistical tools, shall we?

There are no shortages of Tamino's distortions. His blog is a torture chamber of the truth.

Now here we are in April 2008 and Anthony Watts was invited by NCDC to make a presentation based on his surfacestations.org efforts and was formally recognized by none other than Dr. Thomas Karl. Tamino and his flunkies look pretty insignificant right about now wouldn't you agree?

Anthony Watts efforts were vindicated by NCDC. What was Tamino's positive contribution to science again?

Open Mind is the place for Simple Minds.

P.S. Two other examinations of the CO2/Temp relationship are here and here.

So many words and so little content.

 

[Megalodon]

Your post is perfectly disconnected from the one that you quoted.

Care to elaborate a bit on such a statement, would you?

I could, but it's plain enough as it is... and you wouldn't understand it either...

 

[TrueSceptic]

I provided you a link to Basil's response to Tamino's criticisms. If that wasn't good enough for you, too bad.

As for D'Aleo, I'm assuming it is concerning his CO2/temp graph. As Tamino is famous for and why everything he says must be filtered and parsed, if you'd bother reading the blog entries, you'd notice Leif Svalgaard chimes in and places Tamino in a difficult position because it exposes Tamino for what he does all the time, that being twisting the facts beyond recognition to fit his equivalent twisted views. Svalgaard does not like D'Aleo's graph, yet he also correctly points out Tamino is using a scaling to force the CO2 to conform to the temperature, which is precisely what I've pointed out on several occasions in this forum; it is incorrect and deceptive. Tamino accuses D'Aleo of cherry picking (actually lying as the blog title implies) the last ten years (which BTW clearly shows zero correlation between CO2/dT). Whether this 10 year time scale is pertinent to climate change at large is debatable, but the anti-correlation is there and the reason why it is there should be explained.

Because of Svalgaard's influence, had Tamino prevented him from posting as is done to so many others, one could imagine the humiliation poured out upon Tamino in the blogosphere

Tamino is no less guilty of "perjury" than D'Aleo. He thinks he's some sort of judge and jury and whatever he says is the Last Word.

Leif Svalgaard knows the games Tamino plays. This is why Tamino is taken serious mainly by himself and the zombies who think he's an infallible source of information. The problem is Tamino causes others to spend their valuable time smacking him down because of his sleight of hand.

It's no wonder Megalodon is so confused; he's got Tamino syndrome.

Next we can examine Tamino's criticism of Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org website from last year.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

and the followup by Steve McIntyre:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1844

We can also revisit Lucia's very thorough repudiation of Tamino's calculated abuse of statistical tools, shall we?

There are no shortages of Tamino's distortions. His blog is a torture chamber of the truth.

Now here we are in April 2008 and Anthony Watts was invited by NCDC to make a presentation based on his surfacestations.org efforts and was formally recognized by none other than Dr. Thomas Karl. Tamino and his flunkies look pretty insignificant right about now wouldn't you agree?

Anthony Watts efforts were vindicated by NCDC. What was Tamino's positive contribution to science again?

Open Mind is the place for Simple Minds.

P.S. Two other examinations of the CO2/Temp relationship are here and here.

I note that you make claims about Tamino's blog without supporting a single one. He exposes your sources as liars and incompetents and you don't like it. All you can do is quote them, as if they could even be trusted to tell us the time of day!

Your post also contains the usual insults. How about doing some homework instead of lapping up whatever your lying incompetent sources feed you, you lazy liar?

 

[mhaze]

I could, but it's plain enough as it is... and you wouldn't understand it either...

A WONDERFUL answer, thanks: Delightfully sciency, yet truthy.