Check out this nonsense from Lubos
Many skeptics’ adjustment-phobia unmasks their anti-scientific credentials
Whether or not you apply one of the specified major adjustments or two or none of them doesn’t visibly affect the resulting graph at all.
I am surely a “lukewarmer”, together with Steven Mosher, because the label of the full-fledged skeptics has been hijacked by anti-science nut jobs, indeed.
The Reference Frame: If done right, temperature adjustments are great
Lubos has no clue what he is talking about. The only decent temperature record is in the US, and it has been massively altered to cool the past.
The global surface temperature record is complete crap, with most of the land surface not covered, more than 50% of the data fake, and huge selective loss of rural stations since the 1970’s
Check out this whopper from Lubos.
The temperature record resulting from the weather stations differs from the graphs generated by the satellites – not by too much
Utter bullshit, Lubos. The divergence between Berkeley Earth and satellites is massive
Why a few skeptics are letting themselves be used like this is beyond my comprehension. The temperature record has been massively and successively altered across the planet, through replacement of rural data with urban data.
Lubos is focused on one aspect of the problem, and missing the forest for the trees. We have a great opportunity to finish this scam off, and a small group of academics are letting themselves be used to sabotage it. And then calling other skeptics “anti-science nut jobs”
Unbelievable.
Some prefer vanity over truth.
Is that why Lubos assumes:
1. Interstellar Hydrogen makes stars instead of stars making interstellar H?
2. Neutrons attract other neutrons instead of neutron repulsion?
3. Climate change is caused by CO2 instead of the Sun’s pulsar core?
“Many skeptics’ adjustment-phobia unmasks their anti-scientific credentials.”
What utter C***!
I love it! When you can’t put forth a solidly reasoned argument supported by documentation with valid, confirmed data, well, then you attack with an vicious ad hominem to try to shut your opponents up!!!
And Lubos has the unmitigated gall to call US “anti-scientific”?
The volume of ice in the Arctic is the largest of five years.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
What was Lubos smoking? Or was he just out of ideas.
Social security may send you more accurate payments adjusted for inflation, adaptive optics improves some telescopes as well as Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars, eyeglasses adjust some vision disorders,
What a rambling piece of a strawman argument.
In particular, we have the problem of the urban heat islands. While it is obvious that the urban heat islands do add a temperature change comparable to 1 °C
He admits to 1C UHI (it is actually higher), but then fails to mention the 0.1C (on average) under-adjustment for this.
But while it’s true that one must be careful not to apply adjustments incorrectly or selectively in order to push the data in a fixed direction, one must also honestly recognize that many adjustments make the underlying science (or technology) more accurate – and many of these adjustments don’t matter much, anyway.
In one sentence he admits that adjustments are bad if they only go one direction (hello!), and then chides skeptics for not knowing adjustments can be valid, then wraps it up by saying it doesn’t matter anyway.
Thanks for the update, Les.
If Social Security went back and retroactively “adjusted” the SS checks people cashed for the last 20 years downward by 1% per year, people would be rioting in the streets.
Would they be able to convince seniors that the checks weren’t as high as they remember after all?
Maybe Lubos’ optometrist is a fraud.
gator: Lubos doesn’t smoke anything. He is just so full of himself. As I understand it, he stands at a three-way mirror every morning smiling at his image while giving praise to himself for how much more smarted his reflection tells him he is than any mere mortal he has ever bumped into.
Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.
Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.
I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.
Dear Mr. PHD Motl, where is your evidence supporting the idea that the adjustments and especially the methods used to implement them and compute the so galled Global Average Temperature have any value at all?
Arguments from or for authority are invalid.
Basically whats happening and it was totally predictable, is that skeptics are now becoming total non-believers in the whole idea of AGW, and you have some left who still believe the earth is warming and some of it is due to human C02 (ie Lomborg, WUWT, Curry,Lubos, Monckton ect). When you look at the evidence of data manipulation that is so obvious now (and really was from Climategate) , It will take some time for it too sink in that they have all been royally had. My father was employed to FIX all the stevenson Boxes for the WMO (as an expert Atmospheric Physicist and Meteorologist with various publications in NATURE, and studied with Einstein at the Max Planck Intitut fur Physic from 1935-37), in Bolivia and Paraguay from 1964 to 1977 so the RAW data from this area is correct. The adjusted data is a complete FRAUD these people should be prosecuted.
Your last sentence expresses well the rude awakening we must each make before realizing government deceit and personal freedom are ends of a “see-saw.”
Gov. Deceit________Personal Freedom
________________^_____________________
In the old USSR and the present USA, deceit is high; Personal freedom, low
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or a little below half of the central estimate of 0.70 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, in IPCC (1990). The outturn is well below even the least estimate.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image006_thumb3.jpg?w=601&h=271
The characterization of other critics as “anti-science nut jobs” says it all.
I disagree with him so he’s obviously stupid.
Lubos swallowed consensus science models whole, and now cannot grasp that . . .
Data Adjustments Save Models !
Temperature adjustments are minor compared to adjustments made by space “scientists” to hide the fact that the Sun selectively moves lightweight elements and lightweight isotopes of each element to the photosphere and solar wind.
The curved line defined by data points from analysis of Apollo lunar dirt was converted into a flat, horizontal line to confirm the Standard Solar Model’s prediction: The interior of the Sun must be composed of H and He just like the Sun’s outer photosphere:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
Just so Lubos knows I ain’t talking @@@@. My father was one of these authors Nolan ect (he may recognize who knows?)
http://www.rti.org/pubs/bk-0003-1109-chapter04.pdf
Eliza, go make your comment on Lubos site. I did linking to the comments I made about the historical documents.
Your information is also very valuable because it is validation from a completely different ‘method’ as is mine. Doing the same experiment over and over is all well and good but validation from an entirely different method is even better because it lends a lot more weight.
Instead of adjusting data from the Galileo Probe of Jupiter in 1995 –
data that confirmed the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe)
– data were hidden from the public until 1998, when the Administrator of NASA was confronted in public while being filmed by CSPAN news.
I may post the news video so Lubos can help NASA explain why they hid data that cost the American taxpayers >$1,000,000,000.
This video includes CSPAN news of NASA’s Administrator releasing 1995 isotope data from Jupiter in 1998 – data that confirmed the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe) surrounding its pulsar core.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco
I question all the presentations of anomaly temperature trending. We are dealing with a poorly covered sphere that is 70% ocean and “algorithms” to “calculate the missing information. Add to that the tremendous adjustments with little scrutiny and you basically have an Enron spreadsheet to manufacture your results.
Since temperatures range from -88C to over 56C annually across the sphere, it is ludicrous to measure change in .1 increments and plot a y-axis that spans 2 degrees in range. Graph annual unadjusted temperature on a 150C range y-axis and you have a flat line.
This is tortured data water boarded on a chart. The only thing more absurd than this whole process is the venom from its defenders.
Every time we see significant adjustments, they should be challenged.
The logic of Lubos and co is that all the warming adj tend to cancel out the cooling ones. This seems to me to be incredibly poor science, even if it were true. Data always needs to be accurate, not just full of poor data that cancels out.
CRU has admitted that they destroyed many of the original temperature records going back for decades. Now we all just have to take their word that the databases that are left are properly “adjusted”. It shows how much contempt these folks have for the raw data.
Whether they are destroying physical data records, or destroying the raw data with adjustments that they can’t or won’t explain, they should not be let off the hook.
Have always wondered why that admission didn’t result in an instant dismissal for the man / men tasked with keeping those records safe. Should have been fired on the day of their admission.
I really hate book burners!
(Of course I am now drowning in books despite over 25 bookcases.)
Paul you just DON’T adjust data period! Ernest Beck showed the correct way to handle old data.
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg
When you open the door to adjustments, you open the door to fraud and accusations of fraud.
At the risk of being a bit pedantic — “you just DON’T adjust data period!”
UNLESS…. you have a clear, specific, unambiguous, quantifiable reason, and you are open about how much and why you did the adjustment. “After 38 months of use, the thermometer at Boondocks Weather Station was found to suffer from a manufacturing defect that misaligned the scale and led to all readings being 0.4 degrees too low in the period before its replacement.” Needless to say, such adjustments are VERY rare and need to be specific to the site, quantifiable, repeatable, verifiable and well documented.
None of those things seem to be common in the temperature record…
There I will agree with you Jason. However you should not even be finding that sort of problem since the thermometers should be calibrated before being placed in service and on a routine basis.
On page 12 and 13 of the 1892 Instruction Manual for volunteers there are instructions for comparing the working thermometer to a ‘Standard Thermometer’
https://archive.org/stream/instructionsforv00unitrich#page/12/mode/2up
If the thermometer has been calibrated and then falls out of calibration before the next calibration you really can not apply an adjustment unless you have solid evidence of WHEN the instrument went out of calibration. So you are again left with error bars.
Also note these instruments were the property of the US government although read by volunteers.
This paper gives an idea of the caliber of scientist involved as volunteers:
The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891.
My opinion (based on my reading) is these volunteers were much more careful scientists than the run of the mill ClimAstrologist that we now have littering the landscape.
Hey Gail! Yes. There may possibly be reasons (clear, quantifiable, explainable, reproducible, and again I say quantifiable) to adjust data. Part of a good experimental scientist’s job is to conduct the experiment (or measurements) in such a way that adjustments are not needed. The CAGW so-called “scientists” not only have made adjustments far, far beyond any justification, they have repeatedly refused to explain why or how the adjustments are made. Considering the nature of the adjustments, the only rational explanation is that they are changing the data to suit their desired outcome. They are committing the worst sin a scientist can do. They are lying about the data.
I think someone must have topped-up Lubos’s tip-jar with a few warm greenbacks.
He jumped on the pro-Putin bandwagon a while ago, & has been slowly bouncing off into the sunset.
Interesting! I tried to add the following to get his attention:
“You or your parents probably lived under communism. You should have recognized the danger of totalitarian science. “
I was informed that my internet connection failed.
“Why a few skeptics are letting themselves be used like this is beyond my comprehension.”
I will speak in general here, I have absolutely no clue what motivates the individual that is the subject of this post.
Controlled opposition helps the powerful. It gives those they rule a sense of things being reasonably debated. This is accomplished by creating a comfortable niche for an intellectual or media personality to move into by setting bounds for socially acceptable thought. An acceptable skeptic can get right up to the line but if he doesn’t cross it, he serves a purpose. There’s no real risk until the line is crossed.
There is of course paid opposition which is something different. That is they are paid to herd and guide the thoughts and efforts of people who don’t believe in what power is doing. This harmlessly disperses and dissipates their energy. But so does the independent skeptic who stays within acceptable bounds. This is more for media personalities, but there are probably some intellectuals out there doing it.
It’s the essence of two party politics as well. It sets a framework where thought does not stray outside the frame. So long as it is inside the frame power retains power, the gravy still flows to them. Ever notice that once someone gets outside the frame both parties attack him?
Skeptics let themselves be used like this because they are either afraid of the consequences of going outside the framework of the debate or they make their living by staying within it and keeping other would be skeptics inside it.
If you look at WUWT you can see the commenters ‘Herded’ by a few who ONLY comment on certain topics and comment all day long and into the evening.
Those that I have noticed that seem to fit this criteria are: Lief Svalgaard (solar) Englebeen (CO2 record) and of course Hausfather and Mosher (temperature record). As long as you have ‘Herders’ with good credentials and pat answers at their finger tips it is easy to keep the Controlled opposition within the designated framework of the debate.
I wonder if Anthony and the rest at WUWT know about this one:
Lubos response:
I guess I am an ‘anti-science nut job’ because I rather see error bars used.
This ‘anti-science’ term is all over the place these days. Science is apparently now a religion and any questioning of what its priesthood says or does is ‘anti-science’. The religious nature is has stepped a few more notches lately.
The changing of data, this black box of adjustments, violates the basics of how I was taught to do science in grade school. Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s that simple. All analysis must be documented, described, and disclosed. It must be open to be questioned. It has now become ‘anti-science’ to demand the rules of science be followed. That’s how I know I am dealing with politics and religion. Everything is relative, political, and social now. There aren’t any hard rules any longer. Maybe there never were and things are just fuzzier than ever. Either way adjustments buried away and ever changing is not science. Needed or not with good reason or not. It may be the science religion that has taken over, but it’s not science.
” Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s that simple.”
YES! nicely put and better than I did.
You are correct science has to be open to validation and verification. Eons ago I remember verification had to be done by at least two other independent labs or it was not even considered as anything but interesting possibilities. That was when I was a practicing chemist and a member of ACS. Now ACS has climbed on the CAGW bandwagon and I dropped my membership.
Lubos is a Mosher clone – make drive by statements, and doesn’t address (or rarely does) any claims directly.
If he thinks there’s an issue with something presented here, he should make a *direct* rebuttal; not some vague drivel, and not a display of ignorance (or outright lie) about not having presented *any* argument.
It’s also ironic that someone who does that labels others as “anti-science”. It’s more like: “I’m not going to rebut, so I’ll call them names in the hope they’ll go away”.
Perhaps Lubos has been let inside the secret chambers, and had conferred upon his person the secret al-gore-rhythm decoder ring.
As Paul Homewood has clearly shown, the history of the weather in Iceland tells us the truth, while the “homogenized” temperature record shows us the lie.
Lubos certainly seems stuck in the ‘adjustments are needed and necessary’ mode. Perhaps that is because he has always been in Academia.
I worked in industry (Drugs and Areospace) and if you ‘adjusted data’ you just might find yourself in jail.
Gail,
I am an academic and I kind of resent that comment. I don’t know about drugs and aerospace, but in my field (agronomy), I adjust data all the time. It is a basic fact of data quality control. The difference here with climate science however is that I know exactly why I am adjusting based on metadata, but more importantly the adjustments are tracked, made only once and the data is finalized. You don’t touch it ever again. In the bizarre world of climate science, decades-old data are re-adjusted again and again as Stephen has shown. I have never seen a credible argument countering Stephen’s analysis yet.
As you say you do adjustments to the raw data that are documented and tracked.
In my field (chemistry) the data would be entered in a bound notebook. For drugs it would be signed by me and a second person. All batches that were made would have chemical ID, weights, temperature, … all double checked by a second person and double signed.
Any corrections to the data would have a single line drawn through the original entry so it was clearly visible. The correction made, the reason for the correction and again double signatures.
I was also the one who always got stuck escorting the FDA inspector and having to answer all his questions.
After decades of that I think you can see why the cavalier treatment of data by ClimAstrologists drives my nuts. Especially when I have fired lab techs for much lesser infractions.
I submitted the following message:
Oliver_K_Manuel
a few seconds ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Reference Frame.
Regretfully, Lubos, you are wrong.
Data adjustments are used to protect false consensus models from reality of a pulsar-centered Sun one astronomical unit (1AU) from Earth.
That comment was deleted so I sent another:
Oliver_K_Manuel
a minute ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Reference Frame.
You or your parents probably lived under communism. You should have recognized the danger of totalitarian science.
– – –
Must one swallow the hook in each Standard Model to become a string theoretical physicist?
Well, as one who has always referred to him as the “great” Lubos Motl this is disappointing to say the least. The thread that Steve links to in the top post “If done right, temperature adjustments are great” is as bad as it can get IMHO.
First of all, there is not a single circumstance that I can see a way to paint Mosher in a positive light, ( and that is from five years of experience with his AGW religious beliefs ). He is a hit and run artist, not too bright, and arrogant beyond words.
Secondly, Lubos is downright disgraceful in that thread using the language of the AGW science fictionists e.g., “anti-science nut jobs”. That pisses me off. I think Lubos has spent so much time in esoteric theoretical physics now that he has lost grounding to the empirical. Either that or he wasted too much time watching that stupid “Big Bang Theory” which he obsesses about incessantly. Hey Lubos, like all our cookie-cutter American TV, your show is simply “Friends” with a different coat of paint. You act just like a twelve year old girl who sees her party dress worn by some television actress and can’t shut up about it.
In the comments in that above-mentioned thread he rudely dismisses a commenter “Shub Niggurath”, eventually banning him! How fascist of him. And Ironic. Does “Real Climate” ring a bell?
Finally, some time ago, he lost me as a regular reader of his site when he was posting cryptic blog entries mentioning some pending medical issue that apparently was affecting him somehow. How it turned out I could never figure out. Sympathy turns to apathy on a dime when dealing with drama queens unfortunately. But now I am starting to wonder if he had a stroke or something. That would be the ONLY excuse that justifies the offensive bullsh!t he posted in that thread.
I believe a lot of this type of snarky arrogance comes out of envy and jealousy of Steve Goddard ( think of some big names at WUWT ) who has been singularly relentless in turning over evidence of data *tampering* ( not “adjustments, and certainly NOT “corrections”, Lubos ). These people were all asleep at the switch ( or watching overpaid TV actors play science geeks ) rather than digging through the historical record, or what remains of it. It is a curious fact that some of these same big name jealous folks also are among the select few who have the Climategate 3.0 password, and that really ticks me off.
P.S. since Lubos says he reads this ( Goddard’s ) blog let me ask him publicly why he sides with data tampering as the best solution for station moves, instead of simply ending that station history and starting a new one? And why not dig out early thermometers and carefully duplicate early recording procedures ( location, time of day, etc ) as a scientific control ( you must have heard of “controls” )? Instead he feels that application of some “trust me” algorithm by a non-trustworthy group of arrogant elites is a fine idea. Trust no-one Lubos. I would have thought you might have learned that by now.
Blade,
You might be interested in some of the historical documents I found. Start at this comment
I also posted it here but that is a cleaner draft.
Well said , Blade, especially the last para.
I have to agree with you about TP’s, they really do appear to be detached from reality, which evidently must be an occupational hazard.
Good to see you again Blade!
You too my friend!
I was content to just browse and read articles lately, but dang if Lubos didn’t go and screw that up.
Just when I was out, he pulls me back in…
Happy to see you back in. We need all the help we can get.
You express yourself well !
As the Alberta Clipper sweeps by, the gates of the Arctic will be opened from the Upper Midwest to the Northeast.
Areas made wet and slushy from the storm and moderate temperatures during the middle of the week can become icy and freeze solid. Temperatures may get so low that inexpensive ice-melting compounds, such as rock salt, will be ineffective.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_02101637_hd22.jpg
Would appreciate if you could keep the jet north of the Mason-Dixon line, thanks.
I’ll do what I can. But where is it?
Steve it is worse than ren is showing. The only good is the District of Criminals is going to be so cold the politicians will have to keep their hands in their own pockets!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/02/gfs_t2m_a_f_east2_26.png&w=1484
From Weatherbell via P Gosselin thanks to Bruce of Newcastle.
Great analysis!
The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from satellite data [http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg]. The red contour lines are the year 2000 magnetic field intensity contours (5000 nT contours) shown previously. The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/EarthMagneticField_files/image006.jpg
The following figure shows the correspondence between the changing magnetic field in the Arctic and Arctic temperatures. The magnetic field is shown for Hudson Bay (blue), Siberia (green) and the average (red) and compared with the Arctic average temperature anomalies (maroon). [http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif]
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/EarthMagneticField_files/image036.jpg
Connected to ozone?
The Magnetic Behavior of Ozone (October 1927)
The structure of ozone—An interpretation of its magnetic susceptibility (April 1947)
The Influence of Solar Energetic Particles on Ozone:
Magnetic Field Reversals and Solar Activity
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.gif
Interesting.
Vukcevic’s map has a pole in Hudson Bay and another in Siberia. If I am seeing the maps correctly, the Hudson Bay pole has a lot of ozone while the Siberian pole has a ‘hole’
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t30_nh_f00.gif
Tao.
Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.
But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.
The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582173-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_node_full_image_2.jpg
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/06/Magnetic_field_changes
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2014/06/Earth_s_ever-changing_magnetic_field
Earth’s magnetic field is obviously connected to the Sun’s magnetic field that spurts through the solar photosphere as sunspots.
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/
I looked on Curry’s site earlier and the response given to the news report regarding temperature adjustments. All the graphs shown on Curry’s site, with and without adjustments, have very little change associated with them. I know I am missing something here. Why are their graphs so different from yours that have much larger effects from temp adjustments?
I have no idea what Zeke and Mosher are up to.
Hint: they hate you, Steven.
Why are their graphs so different from what Nick found and posted from NOAA.
posted to the blog story – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/#comment-1856325
Nick February 10, 2015 at 6:14 am
(1) 1997 annual global surface temperature = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global surface temperature = 14.59°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
Falsify either of these two claims if you can.
You should read the latest comment by Lubos on that thread …
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/if-done-right-temperature-adjustments.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)#comment-1846337798
I particularly like how he calls people like Gail Combs “nut job” and “crackpot” and then says since the adjustments have been automatized by BEST, they are OK.
How can be called of someone who does not see the data? The blind?
blind or paid not to see it.
Since he completely ignored my short comment with a pointer he got several much longer comments. {:>D
I stole B’s
“Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s just that simple. “
As the first sentence.
Thanks B for putting our position in such clear and simple terms.
I seem to recall Motl writing at his blog that George Soros was behind the incitement of the Ukraine civil war … paying sniper assassins to pick off protesters to implicate others for the killings.
Whether that is specifically true or not, Soros does have a considerable history of involvement in overturning Russian satellite nations and his favourite economist Jeffrey Sachs, was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet economy under Yeltsin, as Yeltsin’s advisor. Western companies then move in and pick up the pieces cheaply.
His Open Society Foundation was kicked out of Russia, who he hates with a vengeance. He effectively bought up Human Rights Watch in 2010 and they are always first on the scene with stories of dreadful atrocities committed by the “evil host nation”. His activities in Georgia are described here:http://www.rense.com/general83/soros.htm and here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040129060511/http:/www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031126.wxsoros1126/BNStory/Front
He has funded Podesta’s Center for American Progress of which Joe Romm’s Climate Progress is a scion and is a member of the UN High Level Climate Finance Panel, seeking ways to garner the $100 billion a year from western nations for “climate change mitigation”, see here: “High Level Climate Finance”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
I have visited Lubos intermittently, but after the anti-science nut job silliness, I doubt I will again.
How does that old saw go again? Oh…figures don’t lie, but liars figure. That is why the first reaction people have when you explain that NASA and NOAA have been manipulating the temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer is “What?” That and the fact that we are still arguing about changes like 0.3 or 0.7 degree C over a 135-year period. Now tell me who is the “nut job” or “crackpot,” Mr. Motl ?
Since when do others have to prove the assertion that adjustments made to the world’s temperature records is wrong. It seems to me that those making said adjustments are responsible for showing that they were necessary to correct a supposedly bad measurement system. That sounds like a straw man argument to me.
Good evening all. My comment on all of the chatter on this thread is that that temperature records have been tampered with and we all know it. If government backed and funded agencies produced records that were fair, honest, and scientific — like Gail Combs outlined above — we would be looking at global cooling.
All honest empirical data tells us that CO2 has no warming effect at all. On net CO2 helps the atmosphere cool. Can you imagine if the climate “scientists” had to admit that? Blood in the streets I would think.
I tend to agree with the Scottish Sceptic on his take about how the “slayers” lost the battles since they can be terrible on PR … and some of them seem to be jerks to boot. But even jerks can be right.
Worth a read:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/04/skydragons-good-physics-appalling-pr/
Actually Mark it is amazing that Sceptics have managed to get as far as they have although the Trojan Horses are doing a lot of damage.
Looks like Motl may need to be shifted into the Trojan Horse category.
Some skeptics want to talk about science. Others want to end the scam. The later threatens the former.
I am no so sure it is the desire to talk about science. I doubt that will stop for many of us.
Rather I think it is the loss of the limelight as the scam comes to an end and they drift back into obscurity as a result.
I tried that link and receiver the following message:
403
Forbidden
Access to this resource on the server is denied!
My next attempt was successful
Thanks, markstoval, for bringing the Scottish Skeptic Site site to our attention.
I overlooked it earlier. The message is excellent.
This is rather interesting…
If you follow this blog regularly how could you not know that Tony Heller is Steve’s real name since we address him as Tony on a regular basis.
I noticed that but let it pass. There was so much other material to use. It is a target rich environment …
I have now been blocked from commenting on his site. Lubos, welcome to the Skeptical Science category of blog sites …
After all the information I just dumped on his site I am sure I will soon join you in being blocked.
I posted goodies like the instruction manual saying
notrickszone report:
From the Ria Novosti agency
Just another Ph.D. talking outside his expertise…
What is really funny is I posted two of Tony’s most devistating graphs.
US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5685-dec-30-18-55.gif
CO2 Drives NCDC Data Tampering
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif
The response was priceless.
Lubos had a severe fungal infection a few years ago. Maybe it reached his brain.
Quite possible. Just about lost a friend to a severe fungal infection. Being diabetic since childhood didn’t help.
It’s amazing to see this situation. Lubos seemed clearly skeptical a few years ago. Strange.
Some of the statements attributed to him here are well below his ability. Just strange.
Lubos has form – he made a similar attack on Jo Nova and David Evans :
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/
Give poor Lubos a break. He got hysterical when I suggested that Putin is an aggressive authoritarian like the Soviets who formed him. I think he needs a long stay in a comforting environment where he can rest from the uncomfortable facts of the world.
I blame Schrödinger’s cat.
Controlled opposition can be very helpful when one wants to poison debate, make a pig’s breakfast of everything, and ensure nothing threatening to the status quo ever gets firmly established. Has Lubos been a “sleeper” in the climate sceptic movement, has he been turned to the Dark Side, or is this an outburst of egotistical rage fueled by envy? In any case, we know people by their fruits. Labeling dissenters as “nut jobs” or “crackpots” isn’t nice, especially when they don’t deserve it, as is manifestly the case here. I used to have a good deal of respect for Lubos but it’s gone now.
Now that the essentials of what might be called “temper-tamper-gate” are becoming better known and appreciated more widely, attacks on the validity of the exposé and on the reputations of the people performing this work are only to be expected. It’s an indication that Tony Heller and Paul Homewood are getting the message out and that it makes sense and is beginning to resonate. I’ve found that as long as people who aren’t particularly interested in science or climate are responsive to the idea that the climate hasn’t been warming anywhere near as much as officially stated, they are also open to the idea that fraud is being perpetrated, and planting this second seed can be enough to get them emotionally engaged. Because generally people don’t appreciate having been duped.
Great analysis. I especially liked the last sentence, “generally people don’t appreciate having been duped.”
It will be a shock to inflated opinions scientists have of themselves when they finally realize Stalin himself lied to them after forming the UN in 1945
1. The Sun and ordinary stars make and discard H to interstellar space
2. Neutron repulsion powers cores of atoms heavier than 150 amu, some planets, stars, galaxies & the cosmos.
3. Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy was designed to hide neutron repulsion.
4. Joseph Stalin was a little brighter than most physicists.
My advise is that we each try NOT to respond in kind to Lubos.
I suspect that he was, like Oliver, a very left-wing liberal . . .
perhaps even a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a critic of the capitalists, and a supporter of the UN.
It is a shock to the system to realize that the Standard Climate, Solar and Nuclear Models are all absolute BS, designed by propaganda artists to keep us from knowing the nature of the force that destroyed Hiroshima . . .
the force of creation and destruction!