US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2

Posted on October 5, 2014 by Tony Heller

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2

  1. Mat Helm says:
    October 5, 2014 at 9:58 am

    Tony,
    I found a way for you to roll up to the Whole Foods in a vette while still remaining stylishly environmental…

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WcL41yUmzCQ/VDA5wezrRVI/AAAAAAAAIX0/Pz7QG5aYH3A/w884-h833-no/1960-schwinn-corvette.jpg

    Reply
  2. omanuel says:
    October 5, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Darn, doesn’t postmodern science allow the principal investigator to arbritarily assume each of the data points, as measured, correlates independently with CO2?

    Reply
  3. Gail Combs says:
    October 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Tony, is that before or after they adjust the data. (Is it raw)

    Reply
    • stevengoddard says:
      October 5, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      Raw. I treat the adjusted data as toxic waste

      Reply
      • Richard T. Fowler says:
        October 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm

        And so it is! It’s a regular Love Canal of open-air statistical effluent.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          October 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm

          At least Love Canal was the result of something useful.

          CAGW doesn’t even have that very small redeeming characteristic.

          Also as usual the MSM got the story all wrong. From the court case:

          850 F. Supp. 993: United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
          New York Western District Court – 850 F. Supp. 993
          March 17, 1994

          The heart of the case presented by the State to meet its burden of proof and the rebuttal evidence of OCC lies in the transfer of the site to the School Board. Indeed, the State asserted that if Hooker had kept control over Love Canal, there would not have been a punitive damages claim….

          By early August 1946, Hooker knew that the Niagara Falls Board of Education was interested in constructing a new public school in the vicinity of Love Canal in order to accommodate the area’s growing population. Toward that end, a representative of the Board expressed interest in acquiring a portion of the site….

          Jerome Wilkenfeld remembered someone telling him that the decision to give Love Canal to the Board was made because:
          The School Board had threatened legal action … to take the property from us under eminent domain…. And that Hooker is a good local citizen and was not going to get involved in that kind of fight with the School Board and would deed it to them for $1 and include some advisory on … the fact that the site had buried chemicals on it.

          Ex. 1702 at 595. Willers also recalled that the management committee members were indignant when they heard of the threat but did not think it had any impact or effect on the ultimate decision.[20] Ex. 1703 at 317.

          The attitude of Hooker’s executives may also have been affected by the results gathered from test holes dug on April 19 and 20, 1952. The digging was done to determine whether the chemical wastes had moved through the soil. In his memorandum to President Murray, Klaussen reported that ten deep holes had been dug at the site in order to test for subsurface chemical migration, and “in no case were chemicals found *1022 nor was soil saturated with chemicals up to within twelve inches of the excavation.” Ex. 119. A map purporting to show the location of the test holes was given to Small and Collins, the City representative. On the map there is a note, apparently in Klaussen’s handwriting, saying that there was no evidence that wastes were migrating from the site. See Appendix D-1,[**] Ex. 2019; Exs. 119, 3626 ¶ 18 (City-OCC Stip); T. 4187 (Wilkenfeld). Klaussen noted in his memo that the “whole matter was discussed freely with Small and Collins.” Ex. 119. The Board told Hooker that it still wanted the property, but Klaussen felt that Hooker would have to study the soil conditions further before it could consider a transfer. Id.

          The evidence concerning the number and locations of holes dug to test the soil is inconclusive. OCC’s contention that Hooker dug ten test holes is based on Klaussen’s memo and a map of the Canal which identifies the location of the ten holes.[21] William Beck, who joined Hooker in 1952 as part of the Process Study Group, an entering group for newly hired engineers, testified about the map. Although he was not at all involved in digging test holes, he used a blueprint map prepared in 1952 by an unidentified Hooker employee when he went to the Canal in 1957 at the request of the Group’s leader, Jerome Wilkenfeld, to determine where wastes were buried. T. 749-53, 755; Appendix D-2, Ex. 2044….
          http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/850/993/2132540/

      • Gail Combs says:
        October 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm

        I figured as much. Thanks for answering Tony.

        I agree that adjusted data is toxic waste. Any ‘scientific’ study that uses adjusted data without showing:
        1. The raw data
        2. Method of Adjustment
        3. And most importantly a darn good reason for adjustment

        Should be immediately tossed without even going through pee-review.

        As far as I am concerned there are very very few reasons to ‘adjust’ data and the problems should be treated with the use of error bars instead.

        Reply
      • hifast says:
        October 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm

        Indeed it is waste and toxic to the scientific process.

        Reply
  4. tom0mason says:
    October 5, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Steven,
    You’ve omitted the Mann-made correlation factors. You’ll upset the ‘settled science’ brigade.

    Reply
  5. E. Martin says:
    October 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    While it may be difficult to find a scientific journal that would publish this as a paper, it may be worth writing it up and trying.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *