Anthony Watts made a post which alarmists see as critical of me. Normally, they bash Anthony and myself, but now they say that they have proof that I am both evil and stupid, and that I must be silenced. Differences of opinion and different approaches are simply not permitted in the world of orthodox religionists.
Victor appears to be using the word ‘proof’ in a manner of which I was previously unaware.
Proof of a difference (of a method or outcome) in science does not confer proof of correctness, it merely highlights the attributes of the methodologies or their outcomes or both.
Victor appears to think that proof of difference is proof of error.
Victor Venema or a Victor Enema; I really don’t want to hear what is on everybody’s mind, and some ppl even less so …
– unknown author tired of idiots
Very true, and there seems to be an increase of them lately, or is it just the volume’s been turned-up
Who was it that said: “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.”
and to which I would add: “until one’s first post.” Broadband to the masses is Tower of Babel gone viral …
One’s next debate opponent can range anywhere from a pimply-faced teenager, to a savant with any one of a number of specialized talents, mind-numbed union ‘hacks’ working out of the basement of the DNC or the president himself (the present occupant excepted; it would be as obvious as the debates with ems-thing-a-ma-jig or SDB that one was in ‘debate’ opposite an idiot.)
.
Steven,
World leaders and their armies of puppet scientists are now desperate.
They will not accept and cannot defeat evidence the Creator and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system is in the core of the Sun.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Thank you for allowing me to post this information.
On the contrary. The WUWT post only confirms the validity of Steve’s method. Critics want to concentrate on the spike at the end of the plot that is due to systematic error of some sort. What is evident to the critically thinking, is that the trends of all four methods mostly agree. There is a minor 0.1 to 0.2 degree difference, but the trend of cooling the past almost a full degree is replicated and validated. Heck, if we were climate scientists, we would take a multi-model mean and call it good.
Steve, keep up the good work. As far as I know, you are the only one who actually tries to demonstrate the fr-aud committed by the climate gatekeepers. I welcome WUWT bringing attention to your work and spawning wider discussion. Thank you.
“…the only one”? I submitted the following link on the WUWT site today, but I haven’t gotten any visitors from it, so I assume Anthony Watts (who dogmatically dismisses anyone, like me, who totally denies the “greenhouse effect”, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration) either didn’t allow the comment, or his readers have all become strangely apathetic in recent weeks (which I doubt):
US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
There is a strange reluctance, among both alarmists and the “leading” skeptics, to acknowledge the truly definitive evidence against the consensus. That is part of the larger picture of our time, and as with so much else, it is far outside the bounds of proper science.
You’re not an RF guy, are you? You know, antennas, reflectors, Yagis and such? EM (Electro-magnetic) stuff?
Looks like it was snipped as OT.
They seem quick to want to cool the 1940’s based on station moves from urban areas to suburban airports, but likewise, they should likewise adjust the more recent years down because there has been considerable urbanization around many of those same airport stations.
I would think, for the past 50-60 years or so, the adjustments (if any) should be to cool with time, not to warm. Have they done so? To pose the question given this current agenda is to answer it.
First comment ond reply on WUWT
Thierry says:
May 10, 2014 at 6:44 am
Hi Anthony,
It looks like that there is still a little bit less that 1°F temperature adjustment with your last 3 methods since the 40?s. Why did not you comment about that ?
REPLY: I did, see -“The one thing common to all of it though is that it cools the past, and many people don’t see that as a justifiable or even an honest adjustment.” – Anthony
I’d like him to show how your reputation invalidates the graph, showing data and methods.
Of course, that statement is rhetorical; he’s a moron.
If adjustments were required in the raw data, they would only be legitimate if station specific. Anthony’s own Surfacestations project concludes that most stations are biased to the upside.
So, at raw, we begin with temps biased to the upside, and likely more so as time has passed. Then they are adjusted higher (or the past is reduced) by TOBS, Homogenization, or dubious “assumptions” about seawater measurements by warships.
All of these changes together exceed the signal of “warming”.
The “Team” set out to perpetuate plausible rationale for what they wanted to do – make reality conform to ideology.
I am surprised by this recent posting on wattsupwiththat. There is a point that Watts has missed. By taking the average of all existing weather stations, even Steven Goddard is being a bit warm bias. In the course of time they have abandoned some weather stations on higher elevations and in rural areas. The reason is that those stations reported low temperatures. These stations were replaced by stations in cities with big UHI effects and on busy airfields with huge tarmacs. So the only criticism that I have is that the data tampering is even bigger than Steven Goddard is showing us.
De Paus, as they use anomalies you would have to show that those high altitude stations have a lower trend than the ones they kept or started using for that to be an issue.
It would be of interest to see Victor’s critique of the methodology used by the likes of Michael Mann. If he could get it.
Steve merely had a different approach that arrives at a different point on the graph. From what I read, when Anthony requested Steve’s data, he shared it. Steve did not keep it secret, unlike some researchers who hide behind a legion of lawyers.
“Much ado about nothing” – might over-simplify the difference of opinion. I found it interesting and actually refreshing to see two skeptics disagree on an approach to the data. Keeps y’all honest. Respect both of you good men. Kept it civil, too.
Steven, you are a much greater threat than Anthony Watts to the community of “me too” scientists.
Dude,
They hate you. And they use Anthony to bash you.
And they don’t think much of him either, but someone told them that there was a rift .
I am constantly amazed that they even pay that much attention.
It is certainly more attention than they give the actual weather.
Divide and Conquer in action.
The big problem for the Progressives is the entire house of cards is fragile. Once the blinders are ripped of for one piece of propaganda the Sheeple is in danger of seeing just how massive the propaganda is and that it permeates everything. Worse the Sheeple might actually figure out the real goal is to enforce serfdom on him and his childrenand if necessary kill him for no other reason than his belief in independence.
This is the problem that has to be prevented at all costs.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
Tom West describing Stalin’s outlook:
George Bernard Shaw also described the true socialist’s blood thristy outlook:
Once you rip the sheepskin off you see the wolf beneath and that must be avoided at all costs.
Absolutely everyone at either end of the political spectrum likes to call all others ‘sheeple’.
This is rather sad because we are all ‘sheep’ in the bitter end. Unless you want to be a ‘wolf’ and then we have the political and religious extremes that kill millions of people due to small ideological differences. Sometimes, tiny ideological differences.
re: sheeple … one important difference is, you can’t in anyway support your arguments, assertions, or contentions on account of terminal brainlessness … your comments are generally quite banal and your logic unusually specious …
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
Several pages..
If you think the US data has been “adjusted” Just have a look at what BOM does to many temperature stations in Australia. !
Steve, you know your close to the target when you’re taking flak!
Ouch. Just have to re-write this. Otherwise, it does not ‘read’ or parse correctly.
Steve, you know you are close to the target when …
or, using a contraction for the “you are”:
Steve, you know you’re close to the target when …
.
Yes I goofed up. Thanks for the correction.
You know you’re effective when somebody wants to silence your words.
Having seen so much data and research presented on this site showing that, in fact, the U.S. was hotter in the 30s, I was frustrated at some of the other comments. When the adjusted data doesn’t agree with what is already known historically, then it is no longer data. The results of the other methods of calculations were not much different from Steve’s when presented on a graph. Most of the other commenters overlooked the fact that all four plots presented a false picture, historically. One can only conclude that, no matter what method is used, the data was changed on purpose with an agenda in mind.
“”
“When the adjusted data doesn’t agree with what is already known historically, then it is no longer data.”
That is what I think too. But when I try to debate with some of these people, and present some of the historical data, newspaper stories, or wikipedia historical pages on the 1930’s and 1970’s, they are literally so propagandized that they are incapable of digesting it.
Warmists never debate, Skeptics do. Who are the real scientists?
Victor’s argument against debating skeptics is worth a read:
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/venema-debatable-debates.html
He concludes:
“It will certainly not help scientific progress. I fail to see how it would help in communicating our current understanding to the public. A documentary seems much better suited for that.”
A documentary? Like the one-sided propaganda films such as “An inconvenient truth”, or “Years of living dangerously”. I can see why he likes them. There is no debate in them whatsoever.
II wonder why the common usage favors a person being a “McCarthyite”, and not a “McCarthyist”. The practice itself is called McCarthyism, not McCarthyitism. Baffling.
For the same reason that a follower of Stalin was a “Stalinist” but to any Stalinist a follower of Trotsky was a Trotskyite. Damned commies.
From WIKI:
“Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations. ~ Covert Operations Motto
What is interesting about McCarthy is he was actually correct. An April 1994 article tucked in the back pages of the Wall Street Journal said that papers from the Kremlin showed that activist organizations in the USA were not only funded by the KGB but were actually run by KGB agents here in the USA. However the KGB made sure their real agents of influence had no connections to the US Communist Party.
Americans, including McCarthy, were trusting novices dealing with professionals who had survived decades as plotting revolutionaries targeted by the Russian Imperial security service, the Okhrana among others. The entire soviet ruling class were espionage agents baptised in fire.
From : Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe
Note the WIKI entry on Counts only mentions “Counts traveled to the Soviet Union several times in the course of his life, writing several books about Soviet education and comparing Soviet and American education systems. In the 1930s William Randolph Hearst used select statements from interviews with Counts to portray American university faculty as Communist Party sympathizers.”
Ernest Hemingway (Code name Argo) who was not only a novelist but a journalist, also traveled to the Soviet Union and met with KGB officers. (page 152 – 155 Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Haynes, Klehr and Vassiliev)
Part of the problem for McCarthy was there were two different KGB programs running in the USA at the same time. One was intelligence gathering which the book Spies covers. These were the actual hard core “Spies” involved in intelligence collection operations.
The other program was the more vague covert influence operations that did not depend on actual Soviet Spies. Instead it used ‘Willing Accomplices’ or as Willi Münzenberg called them ‘Innocents’
This is the origin of the Progressives and the current Poltical Correctness we see crippling the USA today.
You can see why McCarthy was at such a disadvantage. As Mr. Clizbe has shown, in many cases the people involved were not even aware they were being used.
These covert influence operations were what Khrushchev was referring to when he said
Khrushchev would have been well aware that…
Orthodox religionists is the the right term.
As far as I can see the entire discussion ended up in general agreement that the past is being cooled thru adjustments. Nice to know the Warmists are keeping such a close eye on the leading sceptic blogs…their own blogs are ‘dying in the arse’ as we say here in Australia!
The reputation of Victor Venomous is also well-known.