Mosher : “The Alignment of c02 with adjustments proves that the adjustments are correct”

You really can’t make this stuff up. Why bother to take measurements at all, if you are going to alter the results to match your theory?

Or perhaps Mosher is secretly on our side?  He is openly admitting the data tampering is occurring.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Mosher : “The Alignment of c02 with adjustments proves that the adjustments are correct”

  1. Scott Scarborough says:

    He just dosn’t understand what he is talking about.

  2. Extreme Hiatus says:

    “Why bother to take measurements at all”

    Because they need something to adjust and with numbers they can look sciency. Plus he is being paid to adjust them; no numbers no money.

    He calls it data adjustment, you more accurately call it tampering, and I call it molesting the data because I think that fits better for several unscientific reasons.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Moshpit was hired by BEST as a frontman.

    He has ZERO scientific training, only training in mindless yapping, twisting and squirming the words.

    Once you realise that, you wouldn’t buy a used car from him.

  4. John Edmondson says:

    How does alignment of the adjustments with CO2 prove the adjustments are correct? Surely that comment is total BS?

  5. RAH says:

    Tony is there some context you could have possibly missed? Though I don’t agree or like Mosher I have to say I have judged him to be intelligent enough to not say something like that!

  6. oldbrew says:

    Assuming what you’re trying to prove is the standard MO of climate alarmists. That’s why they make the adjustments in the first place.

  7. Andy DC says:

    Don’t you love it when the other side of the debate proves us right? Admits that they are forcing the data to conform to their bogus hypotheses?

  8. JonA says:

    This seems absurd. The correlation of the temperature anomaly with delta CO2
    would say more about the theory (though would still not be evidence).

    However, what I expect he is saying is something like:

    1) Based on our hypothesis we expect the temperature anomaly increase to be
    proportional to CO2 increase.
    2) We ‘correct’ (homogenise and adjust for TOBs and metrology) the
    temperature field.
    3) The corrections correlate well with the hypothesis therefore this is more
    evidence in support of the hypothesis.

    Which still sounds crazy. The correlation of ADJUSTMENTS with delta
    CO2 looks like a smoking gun to me. It just stinks of infilling (~40% of
    monthly station data is synthetic I think, according to our host) and
    adjustments based on climate model output.

  9. Jimmy Haigh says:

    What it says is: “we know what answer we want”.

  10. Karl W. Braun says:

    If the adjustment algorithm was independently derived so that the trend of the adjustments happened to coincidentally match the rise in CO2 concentration, then the remarks of Mr. Mosher could perhaps be justified. However, no one, including him, can be certain of this since the algorithm in question is not fully known, and thus the possibility that the algorithm deliberately achieves this match cannot be dismissed.

    • gator69 says:

      At the 12 minute mark, Dr Frank explains that supercomputers need not apply…

    • tonyheller says:

      r squared correlation == 0.98 by random chance.

    • JonA says:

      If it matched the anomaly yes, I’d agree – it would count as a ‘non-refutation’
      of the underlying hypothesis. As scientists, we shouldn’t be looking for data
      which support our hypothesis; instead we should be looking for data which
      falsify it.

      However, this is a correlation with the ADJUSTMENTS to the temperature
      field. My hypothesis to explain this would be that the raw data is being
      adjusted to match the theory.

  11. gator69 says:

    Science means constantly walking a tightrope between blind faith and curiosity; between expertise and creativity; between bias and openness; between experience and epiphany; between ambition and passion; and between arrogance and conviction – in short, between an old today and a new tomorrow.
    -Heinrich Rohrer

    Looks like Mosher has issues facing a new day, and uses his tightrope to air his dirty and outdated wardrobe.

  12. Tom Bakert says:

    This is just jaw-dropping. The only thing that is accurate in all of their modeling, measuring and adjusting is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of the raw temperature data. The rest is manipulated, often blatantly, to fit their narrative. Kafkaesque theater at its best!

    • A C Osborn says:

      Even the CO2 is suspect when you see how similar the various measuring stations show the CO2 levels and then compare that to the first CO2 Satellite measurements they released.
      Notice how quiet that has gone.

      • Tom Bakert says:

        Interesting. When you say “how quiet that has gone” are you referring to the frequency of panicky reports of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels?

  13. johnbuk says:

    Use this process at the roulette wheel and you’d only need an hour or so to become seriously rich.

  14. Latitude says:

    Anthony has never fussed at me for linking graphs from here….so I posted the adjustment/CO2 graph over there….But he has fussed when I’ve linked to threads…

  15. Proof AGW theory & IPCC are wrong has been hiding in plain sight. Demonstrated by ‘notch’ in Top-Of-Atmosphere radiation measurements, energy absorbed at low altitude by CO2 molecules is immediately redirected to water vapor molecules. Influence of CO2 compared to water vapor can be no more than the ratio of CO2 quantum mechanics line count*intensity to H2O quantum mechanics line count*intensity This ratio is approximately (71*0.0025) / (423*0.4) = 0.001 = 0.1%. CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Same applies to all other ghg which do not condense in the atmosphere.

  16. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    For anyone who still innocently believes that modern science is a Pure Process of Truth-Seeking Disinterested Researchers, read this:

    >>But to propose a site more than 100,000 years older was professional suicide. It would undermine the research and reputations of most archaeologists now studying the New World.

    >>“If you claim something is that old, you get blasted,” Cerutti said, “which is why some archaeologists stopped working on sites like this. They didn’t want to get blasted.”<<
    <<“Entrenched views are hard to shift for researchers who have built a reputation on them,” he said.<<

    • Adv – Thanks for the link. I relate the resistance from ‘established experts’ to the discovery CO2 has no significant effect on climate. But I recognize that it is not ‘proof’ because the evidence could have been caused by as yet undiscovered factors. I will henceforth refer to my findings as ‘compelling evidence’.

Leave a Reply to R. Shearer Cancel reply

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