About To Go Nuclear Against The Climate Scam

I plan to release my new GHCN 2.0 code today. I just generated all of these plots in less than one minute. The code is easy to understand, and unlike Mosher’s thought process – is fully reproducible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to About To Go Nuclear Against The Climate Scam

  1. Jan Goffa says:

    Good job !
    PS : Is there any reaction/objection from the IPCC/NOAA-front ?

  2. Latitude says:

    WOOT!!!……sic ’em

  3. Sinical says:

    Thank you.

  4. Jack says:

    Science! Wait….umm.

  5. ron fuller says:

    And these data points are based on data from numerous locations; not from rural area monitoring stations that were allowed to go silent, but from city hot zone devices that were maintained.

    Really impressive report!

  6. GW Smith says:

    Excelent!

    • GW Smith says:

      Hi Tony – I’m anxious to see what you come up with today! We need a site we can go to so anyone can create your graphs and hopefully see for themselves. What are your comments of Paul Clark’s site http://www.woodfortrees.org/ ?
      He says he is a British software developer and, “It now seems clear to me that CO2 is indeed the primary driver of Global Warming.” This would raise a red flag to me.

  7. menicholas says:

    Mosher is a clown.
    Truly.
    Here is one example. The other night WUWT hosted a guest post from Nick Stokes.
    A wide ranging discussion followed.
    I mostly rolled my eyes and tried (unsuccessfully) to stay out of it…too many people like to argue with Stokes and Mosher at their level. Jackass liars like them have the advantages of shamelessness and experience.
    They flat out ignore it when caught in lies or when asked questions they cannot bullshit around with, give long winded non-answers to obfuscate whatever possible, and just make stuff up, seemingly at random.
    Lots of people seem to think they are brave hero-types for appearing at skeptical sites at all, but to me there is nothing heroic about being an apologist for the criminal climate mafia. The people that provide cover and misdirection for pickpockets and other flim-flam artists are just as guilty as the guy with his hand in your pocket.
    I wish I knew what those guys looked liked. I imagine comic book villain types…but not like Lex Luthor…more like Scarecrow from the Dark Knight for Stokes, and Cesar Romero’s take on The Joker for Mosher.

    Latitude posted this:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Hnsen-US-1999-2017.gif

    Mosher said this:

    “The only problem Latitude is that Nick points to a page with ACTUAL DATA
    you flash pictures with no link whatsoever to any data.

    the graphs you falsh are of different data, using different methods, and they dont even have the same
    scales.

    We could have an intelligent conversation about the ACTUAL changes they made, but Not unless you present the actual data”

    Just lying and making stuff up…he will not even defend himself when his lies are pointed out, short and sweet-style:
    No reply when I pointed out a few things and then this:

    “Oh, and also BTW…the scale is identical in the two flashing graphs.
    It shifts because the alterations were so huge it was off the scale of the first one. But test that.
    Click the link.
    Then hold your mouse cursor over any line on the graph as it flashes.
    If you hold it right at 1.0 on the first one, it will still be at 1.0 on the second one.
    The horizontal scale is likewise identical.
    Mr. Mosher, you make stuff up and hurl accusations that do not stand up to even mild scrutiny.
    Seriously.
    The graph is exactly what it says it is…and you should admit it, or say nothing.
    Since you already said something, the least you could do is admit you were completely and 100% wrong about everything you said here.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/08/bom-raw-temperature-data-ghcn-and-global-averages/#comment-2575567

  8. Shay says:

    Tony,

    I just found your blog a few days ago and it’s a breath of fresh air. Thanks for doing this.

    Along the way, I came across a site critical of your work (I can find the link if you like), and I’d like to ask a couple of questions for clarification if I may.

    Their argument involves various ways of computing averages with the raw data. I understand there is no single “correct” way to produce a global average with dispersed date. One can just do more or less intelligent things with it, for example trying not to overweight clustered data.

    I also understand that the different ways of averaging the data are unlikely to produce significant differences in the results. If they did, it would indicate something wrong with the data. The claim that a 40 year cooling trend (from the 1930’s to the 1970’s) could be reversed into a warming trend by more sophisticated averaging is absurd. At the very least, it would demand scrutiny into the exact causes of the bias in the data that produced such a peculiar effect.

    My questions are these:

    1) Is the raw data still available for download?

    2) In your software, what method do you use to average? Is it the raw data or do you account for spatial distribution? Have you done both and verified there is no difference in the trend? Can your software do both? (I assume that’s what “gridding” is about but I’m not sure of the terminology).

    3) Has there been any published account of the method NASA/NOAA use to convert the raw data into published data? Is the software they use available for examination? In other words, can one mathematically reproduce their algorithms and study them? If so, has anyone analyzed it for the smoking gun of arbitrarly modified data?

    4) If it hasn’t been published- well that’s a scientific stunner though hardly surprising at this point. Still, I can’t help wondering why no lawsuit forcing them to release it? They are a publicly funded organization producing data that drives public policy. If there is a basis for claiming they have fraudulently modified it, that’s surely a valid reason for a lawsuit. It could be filed anywhere since everyone is affected. I don’t believe every judge in the country has been bought off to tow the AGW line.

    • tonyheller says:

      The global temperature record is a complete farce. There isn’t enough historical data available over most of the Earth’s surface to make a realistic plot.

      I normally work with just US data, which is of very high quality.

  9. TedL says:

    Are there good data sets from other countries to which your software can be applied? England, Australia and Iceland come to mind.

Leave a Reply

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