The Scott Koontz Challenge!

Update : Scott Koontz is now blocked. He didn’t deliver.

———————————————–

Scott Koontz says he will have my GHCN software (which has been open sourced for years) analyzed and debunked in a few hours.  I eagerly await his report.

Unfortunately his frantic posting may slow him down a bit….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to The Scott Koontz Challenge!

  1. Gator says:

    Little Scotty cannot even read a graph. Sad.

  2. Scott Koontz says:

    Why are you lying? I never said I would have it analyzed in a few hours.

    Here is my search results so you don’t have to do any research:
    https://climate.nasa.gov
    http://berkeleyearth.org

    Does a scientist really need anything more than those two links?

    Stop lying, Tony. And while you’re at it, stop with the childish insults.

    • Gator says:

      So where is your analysis Little Scotty?

      You said you are smarter than everyone here.

      You have an audience.

      What are you waiting for?

      Enlighten us.

      Or are you nothing but a parroting troll?

      • Griff says:

        Is Scott also guilty of genocide?

        Or is that just me?

        • Squidly says:

          Why do you hate brown people?

        • Gator says:

          It’s all of you alarmists.

          Are you really as stupid as you pretend Ms Griff? I have shown you the documentation of your crime time and time again. If you are indeed as stupid as you show yourself, then your evil is a little less odious than it would be, if you were even a little intelligent.

        • arn says:

          Just you-
          one genocide after the other
          (+his attitude towards cutting down on fossils is unknown

          Coons is just getting his 15 minutes of fame right now.
          But what both of you obviously have in common:
          You don’t give a shit about all the irregularities
          and wrong predictions and the childish emotionalised attitude((or why the hell this ‘science’
          has such a threatening and aggressive attitude below its slimey cute surface that it created a huge backlash that way)

        • Mark Pawelek says:

          Griff is probably only guilty of wannabe genocide.

    • tonyheller says:

      You said there was something wrong with my software. I’m granting you a few hours to prove you aren’t a liar.

      • neal s says:

        Well, obviously what is wrong with your software, is that when it is used, it doesn’t agree with the pre-determined CAGW conclusions.

        It is like the situation with Procrustes bed. Everything must match what they already know to be the answer, and anything which doesn’t, gets stretched or cut as needed until it does.

        But you might be generous and allow him more time. If he really does put in the effort and looks for himself, if his mind is not already completely mush, there is some chance he might actually begin to understand.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        You are “granting” me a few hours? You lied about what I said, then you pretend that you can grant me something.

        Anyone who thinks that you add temps and divide by the number of additions is all the math you need to determine trends on surface is clearly an amateur. That’s a high school error.

        • Former95B says:

          Well, Scotty will, apparently, still be in Ms. Griff’s 4th grade class all day, so that deadline is unworkable.

          Note: Doesn’t he come off like a spoiled brat eight year-old?

        • AndyG55 says:

          You are NOTHING but a blustering COWARD, koon.

          Put up or STFU

          Still waiting for that empirical proof of warming by atmospheric CO2, btw.

        • Tom says:

          Well Scott, you claim that Tony’s software that presents USHCN data is wrong. Then you link to other sites with other results or claim that TOB, site change, etc is the cause of Tony’s erroneous result. So let us say that you only use non TOB sites, no site change, run the program, see the results and give them to us. If the result is flawed in your opinion, then revise the program, give us your methods, and publish your results on this website. Onerous? yes. Have I done so, yes.

        • RW says:

          Shocking. More hand waving.

        • Mark Pawelek says:

          If the only temperature adjustments are subtractions due to urban heat Island effects, then there should be larger subtracts later in time.

          If we ignore urban heat island effects (so add and subtract nothing) but still get a cooling trend that’s very suspicious. It’s not just Tony finding this.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Nick Stokes and Stephen Mosher knows about Tony’s GHCN software, but never answered the challenge when they disparaged it elsewhere.

      You are going to lose the argument, Scott.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Heller already admitted that he made junior mistakes in one of his previous versions.

        He’s not programmer, obviously.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Yes and that was the set up, NOT the end result.

          You are full of B.S. here since the charts he is posting NOW are the ones you contend is wrong, which has NOTHING to do with his PREVIOUS versions.

          Not a programmer?

          He used to work for INTEL cleaning up the software and more.

          He worked for NCAR making computer programs for charts and related stuff.

          You are ignorant and stupid as hell!

        • tonyheller says:

          Scott’s time is running out.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Put up or shut up, Scotty. Throw down, boy.

        • Tom says:

          Ok Scott. Then show us the results from your program of raw data and then let us compare and consider. Very easy.

        • RW says:

          Scott Koontz posts at 3:51 pm.

          He’s not employed, obviously.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Scott, like Nick Stokes and Stephen Mosher whines and whines, but never get around to addressing what Tony posted in detail.

      Here is the LINK to GHCN code, go download it and see for yourself, what Stokes and Mosher never did, that it is legitimate and based on the data.

      https://realclimatescience.com/ghcn-code/

      Put up or shut up!

    • sunsettommy says:

      He is putting YOU on the spot and your replies show you are all wind and piss.

      You are being destroyed every time you fail to take up the challenge, then make another foot in the mouth reply.

      You are the one who over and over say his program is wrong, then he challenge you to show where it is wrong, you then fire back with evasive bullcrap.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        He “granted” me a few hours. I have a job, so you guys talk amongst yourselves.

        • neal s says:

          Why don’t you take the weekend. That should be plenty of time for a smart crackerjack like yourself.

          • arn says:

            I’m pretty sure he will give you a few days or weeks if you need them-
            but i guess it doesn’t matter and would not change a thing.
            ((btw-finding codes without errors is a wet dream millions of gamers are dreaming of when they buy a new peace of software-but they never get it))

        • sunsettommy says:

          Gee you made a number of claims against Tony’s set up, now you like Nick Stokes and Stephen Mosher, suddenly make excuses when pushed to back up your noisy claims.

          You obviously have no case, as Stokes and Mosher realized by running away. You are going to run away too.

          That is why many here are all over you on it. I think you are just another loudmouth JERK, trying to make a score and miss stupidly!

          • arn says:

            It is indeed interresting to see how fast Mr Coons went from a superior position to:”I have a job.”

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I have a job,”

          Yep, those toilets have gotta be cleaned. !!

          Don’t forget to mop the floor of your drool when you leave.

        • Gerald Machnee says:

          **He “granted” me a few hours. I have a job, so you guys talk amongst yourselves.**
          Poor excuse. try again.

        • Tom says:

          But you started the conversation. You have made the critique, repeatedly, now stop posting opinion and show us your results based on available data and not the results of others. Otherwise, just say you that your posts are based upon your opinion. If Tony is wrong, then trust me that we all want to know.

    • Redford says:

      “Does a scientist really need anything more than those two links?”

      Try posting that in a scientific paper and see if that’s enough for the scientists doing the peer review.

      You don’t sound like someone who has an actual experience in science.

  3. Squidly says:

    Hey Scotty .. why is Tony’s software “wrong” ??

    Don’t accuse Tony of lying, when I can read your comment right in front of me. It clearly says “do a few hours of simple research to understand why his simple program is wrong

    So, did you do that “few hours of simple research”? .. Apparently so, otherwise you are being very disingenuous (lying). So, who is the liar? .. Is Tony the liar for pointing out your failure? .. You are either accusing Tony’s program of being wrong without evidence, or you are lying about your “simple research” … which is it?

    • Scott Koontz says:

      Yes. I did 2 minutes of research. All you really need is a link to NASA or NOAA.

      Proved him wrong in 2 minutes.

      • neal s says:

        All you have proved so far is how gullible you are.

      • Gator says:

        It’s cute that you think that, Little Scotty.

      • Disillusioned says:

        I used to be an apologist for NOAA and NASA also

      • sunsettommy says:

        Yet you can’t post this alleged “proof”, you surely must realize that to support such a claim REQUIRES evidence to back it up.

      • feathers says:

        Remember Scott to separate raw numbers from adjusted numbers, this is where most of the skepticism occurs. I’m genuinely interested in all points of view on this but you’ll need to address the raw temps to hold my interest.

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        **Yes. I did 2 minutes of research. All you really need is a link to NASA or NOAA.

        Proved him wrong in 2 minutes.**

        You proved nothing as usual.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I’m sorry, Squidly, but that’s too complex. Too many questions. Too much thinking.

      Here is Scotty’s approach to science and logic:

      “Does a scientist really need anything more than those two links?”

    • Squidly says:

      Times up Scotty … you lose!

      You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your assertions. None whatsoever. Commenting about “2 links” is not evidence. It provides no specifics. It provides nothing.

      You’ve got nothing ! … it is time for you to run along now. Go back to the playground and play with the other kids (take Griff with you). You are both clearly far outside of your element here and are in no position to participate.

      If you cannot provide specific proofs, or specific information and data for the conversation topics at hand, I cannot take you seriously for anything. You provide absolutely nothing.

  4. Griff says:

    Arguing with climate skeptics is worse…

    They will mostly just call you names… sometimes just dismiss the source of your evidence without looking at the content and never, ever, debate the science you have raised.

    • tonyheller says:

      Looking forward to Griff’s analysis of what is wrong with my software,

      • Squidly says:

        I am certain it is forthcoming .. apparently Griff is anxious to “debate”

        I can’t even write that with a straight face .. laughing my rear end off as I type.

      • sunsettommy says:

        He has had a chance for many months, but never does it.

        Then he has the GALL to post his bilge against those who post here ……………….

        He is lying hard, since many have posted credible links for this fool to see.

    • Squidly says:

      Hahahaha!!! … that is hilarious! … talk about projection .. wow!

      Do you even read your own comment before clicking “Post Comment” ??

      OMG, I have seen lots of stupidity in my lifetime, but this is quite exceptional.

    • Scott Koontz says:

      Heller is full of insults. His replies to me show how rattled he is.

      • Gator says:

        It must be a projectionists convention this week.

      • Mac says:

        Mister, do you know what a petulant little passive-aggressive infant you sound like? My God, you people are like a school bus full of squalling 6 year-olds. It’s truly tragic that people like you exist, living such fearful lives, and vomiting your childish fears and anxieties all over the rest of us. With liberals, something is always wrong, and must be fixed RIGHT NOW. And, of course, the fix always involves goosestepping all over the populace and oppressing people with laws and regulations. You’re all nothing but fascists.

      • RW says:

        Tony seems his usual chill self to me.

        Scott hasn’t made a coherent argument yet. Two links to the home pages of NASA and Berkeley Earth isn’t an artument.

        But I have to hand it to Scott for some effective trolling.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **never, ever, debate the science you have raised**
      In order to debate science you have to raise it. Griff, you never raise any, you just make unsupported remarks.
      I asked you 2 questions on science which you have not answered:
      1. Show me one quality study which MEASURES how much warming is caused by CO2.
      2.. Show me one quality study which determined that warming of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming.
      I await your debate of the science, Griff. Or shall I call you names? Until you respond to these questions you are the liar.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Arguing with climate skeptics is worse…”

      Arguing with wilfully ignorant climate history deniers is a pretty thankless task.

      Getting passed the brain-blocked minds .. so they can get some basic perspective in their irrational thoughts is basically impossible.

      Evidence is JUST IGNORED

      The most extreme case of climate denial. !

    • sunsettommy says:

      Griffyboy,

      It has been a few hours, but no analysis about the software comes from you either.

      Gee, warmists sure talk big then run away when challenged.

      • RAH says:

        I do not have the knowledge to analyze the software either. Not will I ever have because it is not my thing. Sometimes on technical issues that one is not informed or educated in one just has to make a judgement of who your going to trust. A well developed BS meter and an inquiring mind helps with making such determinations.

        • Squidly says:

          Well, I am qualified. I have analyzed and used Tony’s software. I find absolutely nothing particularly remarkable about it. I don’t find it particularly complicated (pretty simple in fact). I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. It performs exactly as one would expect it should and produces exactly the results that it should. I trust Tony’s software over anything produced by NASA/GISS/NOAA or any of the other alphabet government agencies. At least with Tony’s software I can verify it, the others you cannot.

          By the way, I am a computer researcher and software engineer with more than 35 years of experience. I am fluent in more than a dozen programming languages that I work with every single day and have for more than 35 years.

          I will gladly challenge anyone elses analysis. By the way, I have also analyzed (extensively) 5 of some of the most popular and widely used climate models in the world, including GISS Model-E (Gavin Schmidt’s little pet project). They are all absolute shit, which one would expect when the creators have no concept of computing or software engineering. I was astounded what I found under their hoods. Left me almost speechless. Some of the worst code and coding practices I have ever seen in my career.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Thank you for sharing this.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            When the scoundrels arrive in hell I expect their new landlord will make them read the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file over and over again.

            And again.

          • R. Shearer says:

            Calling them absolute shit is pretty descriptive and understandable. On the other hand, that description is not very formal or technical. Are there quantitative measures that can be used to assess their quality or lack thereof? Is there any evidence whatsoever that GISS, for example, practiced and documented any verification and validation?

    • AZ1971 says:

      Arguing with climate skeptics is worse…

      They will mostly just call you names… sometimes just dismiss the source of your evidence without looking at the content and never, ever, debate the science you have raised.

      You’ve described climate change paranoids, not skeptics. I’ve been to many a website and been the recipient of many a juvenile name calling by CAGW adherents. Skeptics aren’t even allowed to hold the position of skepticism on the topic. How is that appropriate in any scientific endeavor?

      You want to know why I’m a skeptic? Because the patchwork of proxies and data adjustments relied upon by the so-called experts to create the prevailing storyline of “it’s all about the CO2” looks something like this:

    • RW says:

      Discussing how one comes up with things like graphs and summary statistics is kind of sort of goes with science.

  5. Squidly says:

    Oh, and by the way Scotty, you have provided absolutely NO evidence that Tony’s program is wrong. If you are going to make such accusations, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove such allegations! … otherwise, STFU !!

    • Scott Koontz says:

      Tony proved that one of his first versions was wrong. Who takes a simple average and says “this is a monthly average for the state.”

      Tony does!!! He has little science background, but clearly no math skills.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Yet you can’t manage to post the evidence.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Only skill you have is mindless wanking yabber.

        You are a scientific and mathematical NON-ENTITY, koon

        Still waring for that proof that atmospheric CO2 causes warming

        You are just an EMPTY SAD SACK with utter delusions of your own self-worth. ie a total WAN*ER

        • AndyG55 says:

          typo..

          waring -> WAITING.. as in waiting, waiting , waiting

          nada zip EMPTY !!

          • tonyheller says:

            Sorry, I blocked him.

          • MrZ says:

            Why blocking? He was such a fun puppet without a clue.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Good.

            He was an empty brained loud-mouth anyway !!

            Said he was an “educator” all one can think is..

            Oh No, yet another bunch of brain-washed leftist suckophants without an operational thought process in their heads.

      • RW says:

        Averages have been around for about 150 years, Scott. But there were definitely folks in the 1800s that took deep exception to the procedure. They just thought averages were crazy talk. Statisticians have math skills and they don’t have any problem with averages.

  6. Scott Koontz says:

    “In the days prior to his appearance, Heller—an active Twitter user, who also believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States and that the New York Times is “fake news”—tweeted photos of the Puget Sound area’s recent snow as arguments against global warming.”

    Heller is a birther. This is getting to be more interesting. NYT is fake news?

    Go back to assuming that you add temps, divide by the number of stations, Tony

    • Gator says:

      Tony only published the bio Obama used for seventeen years, and that bio claimed Zobama was born in Kenya. Tony was only taking Barack at his word.

    • tonyheller says:

      Your endless stream of lies is just about to get you banned.

    • Anon says:

      Scott, stop being a goof. We are interested in the “science” here. What political views of say, Werner Heisenberg or Wernher von Braun, were have no merit is terms of the science they produced. Newton was an alchemist also, so do we throw away the Principia? Yesterday I gave you a bunch of links to work by Lindzen, Pielke, Soon and others and I am still waiting for a response to their work.

      As an aside, if you are interested in why this blog is exploring other issues, that are often considered “conspiracy theories” it just has to do with intellectual curiosity. When things don’t quite add up, intelligent people take notice, it is not the same as concretely connecting the dots – but just point out the anomalies in the accepted narration. Intelligent readers can take it or leave it without freaking out…

      A good study on that can be found here:

      From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a
      paradoxical simplex.

      A novel theory of Openness/Intellect is proposed, which integrates intelligence and positive schizotypy (or apophenia, false detection of patterns or causal connections) within the Big Five. Openness/Intellect
      comprises a simplex of subtraits arrayed along a single scaling dimension. Openness traits fall in one half of the simplex, bounded by apophenia; Intellect traits fall in the other half, bounded by intelligence. The simplex is paradoxical because intelligence and apophenia are negatively correlated despite both loading positively on the general Openness/Intellect factor. The model was supported in two samples and organizes theories of (1) the relation of intelligence and schizotypy to personality, (2) the psychological and
      biological mechanisms involved in Openness/Intellect, and (3) the costs and benefits of Openness, proximally and evolutionarily.

      “IE: Genius requires penetrating insight into reality, whereas madness is confusion about reality.”

      https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DeYoung_2012_O-I_simplex_JRP.pdf

    • arn says:

      Wow.Mr Coons used one of those magic words
      (birther,conspiracy theorist,blablaphob)
      he was given by his Lords who think for him.
      The same guys who pushed and promoted Obamas lies for wars
      which destroyed 3 countries (well Syria is ‘just’ half destroyed)
      but being a birther is a real bad thing-
      especially when one uses Obamas own campaign posters from the 90ies where he called himself nigerian.(i wonder why the msm used to ignore it,or the fact that Obama was exposed by Seymour Hershs “The red line and the rat line” as lying warmongerer who is trying to attack Syria on bases of a staged gas attack-and all media outlets(incl. nyt) refused to print his article so that massmurdering barack can go killing and destroying.

      Phantastic-i’m so proud of you especially as i don’t see what one thing
      has to do with the other.You posting rubbish does not mean that you are a bad driver.

    • Mac says:

      Barack Obama himself said he wasn’t born in The United States. Obama is the original birther, and then Hillary Clinton promoted it before anyone else. I bet you voted for her, though.

    • Larry Geiger says:

      I can’t confirm or deny Tony’s code. I could if I spent the time looking at it but I don’t have the time. However, I will never knowingly select a link to the New York Times or the Washington Post. As soon as you defend those people I turn you off and never listen to you again. You have zero discernment.

  7. Anon says:

    A serious word on this:

    Not to cast any doubt on Tony’s work with this comment, but it came to a point where I felt the need to share some of Tony’s findings with my professional colleagues. At that point I needed to verify the graphs and results Tony was reporting on this website. As I no longer trust NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, etc and as much as I “felt” that what Toy was producing was accurate, I needed to verify it before sharing. (no offence Tony)

    So with another piece of commercial software and after downloading the data from the original source, I began to test Tony’s results.

    The result was that I was able to duplicate ALL of the ones I tested and I tested a sufficient number (representative sample) across a long span of time such that I am statistically confident of all of Tony’s work — to the point where I was personally confident enough to begin sharing the results with colleagues.

    If Scott Koontz is undertaking the same or similar exercise, with the appropriate mathematical rigor, I hope he will report his results back to us.

    However, I don’t think that I made a mistake, but will be open to what he finds.

    • Anon says:

      That said, I recommend this exercise to anyone who has the software and the time to do this. As a scientist and now former AGW educator, who took this VERY SERIOUSLY, as I was educating future generations on AGW, it was imperative that I do it – and I did derive quite a bit of ancillary satisfaction reproducing Tony’s work. Not only did it bolster Tony’s reputation in my eyes, but with my own analysis and independently acquired data, I could “practically” present Tony’s work as my own. (not that I did)

      When you see the results come out of your own software, things become a lot more “real” than taking someone’s word for it.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Well said!

      • arn says:

        I ‘ d really like to know what the starting point was for your
        transition/move back to reality and sanity.
        As this may be important part of a puzzle to figure out
        ways to get people easier out of mindprisons.
        And it might be interessting wether you have been an emotionally involved activist propagating AGW things
        or just a reliable scientist with good intentions and a little bit naivity?

    • Ditto. I did the same thing in Excel, using macros, tables, and my own interface. It was quite an undertaking, I probably had 100 hours in it to get decent results with some cool and interesting features to pull the data from NOAA, store the files, compile different zones, etc… Not the best platform, but it worked and could to maybe 10% of what the GHCN software can do.

      The result was much less flexible and nowhere near as capable as Tony’s, but I will say this… I got EXACTLY the same answers and charts as what Tony was posting here at the time. This was before Tony released the GHCN software to the public so that anyone could access the data and visualize each station (or hundreds compiled) easily. A completely independent analysis using the same data from NCDC gets the same answers.

      Tony even asked for a crowd sourced debug review to help eliminate any errors. I didn’t even bother looking based on my earlier results.

      Huh. Maybe we were both wrong, eh Scott?

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      If Scott was capable of doing it he would have done it. All he has shown is that he is full of CAGW hot air.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I needed to verify it before sharing. (no offence Tony)”

      That is only what TH would expect.

      He would certainly take no offence at you doing so.

    • RW says:

      Anon. Good on you. Tell us how your colleagues reacted when you shared with them your findings.

      • Anon says:

        Well, believe it or not most scientists are fairly open minded about discussing AGW as most are not in the field and have all the necessary skills to evaluate data. And we are always conversing about different scientific problems and paradoxes, etc. so an AGW problem or set of data is looked at as just another data set. That said, I have not been trying actively promote climate skepticism, just get my self out of the ethical dilemma of having to teach it. When I have been asked why I am not teaching those courses anymore, I will share my findings, for as far as anyone wants to go along. In the hard sciences like physics and spectroscopy the peer review process is extreme effective, so most are blown away about how egregiously erroneous data and studies get published in the climatology field. From there it just depends on the person’s interest.

        • R. Shearer says:

          I’m a scientist (PhD chemist) and I work with other scientists and engineers. I find the belief of AGW to fall generally along party lines, with academic scientists mostly in the AGW camp but those in industry, especially engineers, to be highly skeptical.

    • Squidly says:

      I did a little bit of fundamental data testing against my own data generation, but mostly, I just read through the code. I read it, traced it and verified each of the routines and algorithms. I didn’t need to run a bunch of data. A + B will always equal C … just sayin’

      • Squidly says:

        Perhaps I’ve been in this business too long, but I read code like most people read the daily newspaper. I used to do code review for more than 120 software engineers .. every single day!

  8. feathers says:

    This is a sincere post to Scott. My understanding of Tony’s software is that he provides both the raw (unadjusted) and adjusted data in his software. When we plot the raw data, which is provided from USG sources, the graphs often show zero warming or at times cooling. If you see something incorrect with the data or the software tool then we are expecting a stand-up analysis that addresses specifics – this is fair, agree? Just simply saying it’s wrong won’t fly, you’ll need to be specific.

    • Anon says:

      Hi feathers,

      In truth the software is not the issue. When you start blaming the software, it is akin to blaming your word processing program for the C minus you got on your midterm essay.

      All of Tony’s work can be reproduced on any piece of commercially available software out there than can handle large data sets and do the statistical analysis. You can even use Excel if you desire, although that is time consuming and painful. I prefer MatLab but ANY other program out there of similar ability will work.

      For the convenience of his readers, Tony has made available the software he uses so as they can generate similar graphs without having to endure the tedium of setting up a program themselves.

      The idea that Tony has a software problem is, frankly, absurd…

      Sorry to be so blunt.

      • feathers says:

        Thanks Anon.

        Scott – focus on the data, tell us (specifically) where you have concerns.

        Still there Scott?

      • sunsettommy says:

        It takes some software skills to generate a data use program that works well, which must have taken some time to make.

        Scott writes insultingly over what Tony has done with it, yet never post any evidence that they are bad.

      • AndyG55 says:

        What is really funny is that the koon could be using a computer where the chip has been TH verified.

        Poor koon is SO FAR OUT OF HIS DEPTH he hasn’t even figured out he has to start paddling !!

        Its quite hilarious, really.

      • Squidly says:

        All good points Anon.

        No disrespect to Tony, as his little program is pretty nice and handy and all. But there really isn’t anything particularly remarkable about it. It is just straightforward maths and charting .. so what? .. it’s pretty simple, and it works precisely as one would expect and as it should.

        To be technical about it —> Easy Peasy

      • Latitude says:

        “The idea that Tony has a software problem is, frankly, absurd… ”

        yes it is………..

  9. MrZ says:

    Hours are running.
    Why don’t we lower the bar for Scott as an intermediate step?
    Please post a graph of ANY analyses you or your students have ever produced on this matter.

  10. RAH says:

    “Scott Koontz is now blocked. He didn’t deliver.”

    A very rare move for you Tony. Can’t remember the last one you blocked. I’ve seen you warn people that if they continued that you would do so but not actually do it that I can recall. But maybe my memory fails me.

    • Squidly says:

      Interesting note .. Tony actually blocked me some years ago, back when he had the old domain. We had a good fight over the so-called “greenhouse effect” (for which I have not changed my mind one iota, in fact I continue to be vindicated daily). Apparently he didn’t move some of that data over to his new domain during that process.

      • Anon says:

        Squidly, not to stir anything up, but there is something worth looking at there? There are a mix of optical and convective effects taking place that are very important to understand.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    “Scott Koontz is now blocked. He didn’t deliver.”

    He didn’t even try to back up his claim, just deflections, excuses and babble …..

    Saying it is wrong is not enough, especially when saying it on the program creators blog in front of the world.

    That was stupid of you Scott.

    • Disillusioned says:

      The more he kept sticking his foot in his mouth and the more cornered he got, the more outrageous he became.

      It’s a travesty that people like Scott are actively indoctrinating our children with propaganda, refusing to actually do any research. Now he has the time to download the Pulling Back the Curtain Software and click the other links and actually spend “a few hours” doing some scientific research – rather than blindly accepting and believing that the NASA/NOAA/BEST records are pure as un-driven snow.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    from K at NTZ.. what REAL scientists have to say.

    I particularly like this part.

    “there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is just redistributed within the atmospheric column”

    Exactly what I have been saying for years !! :-)

  13. RW says:

    Why bother blocking the troll? It just becomes a badge of honor pranced on other sites. Better off just ignoring noisemakers of Scott’s sort.

  14. Jimmy Haigh says:

    He’ll be back. Under a different handle.

  15. Latitude says:

    Any one else notice that Scott has a job…and doesn’t have time to explain why Tony is wrong…..but Scott has time to post over and over and over

    • Disillusioned says:

      Yes, of course. It was glaringly obvious.

      He had all the time to boast of his brilliance and to ridicule others (while also whining about being ridiculed), in post after post, in thread after thread, but then he had no time to download the software and prove to everyone why Tony’s data is fake when he was put on the spot. Excuse: he has a job.

      Scotty is full-on indoctrinated into a belief about the integrity of GISS/NOAA/BEST, dare not see the flaws and is being paid to stay in – and push – that belief system. I believe he knows he would be shamed by colleagues for going off the reservation, and possibly risk getting fired. I am sure he has very little incentive to put any cracks into that Humpty Dumpty.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Yep. Scotty’s a phony. All hat, no code.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I fully expected his belligerence. He is fighting to preserve long-held beliefs. So we must be kooks, deniers liars – people who know little to nothing about science. That’s what he has been brainwashed into believing since before he stepped foot here. He thought it would be a cake walk.

      I am sure it was upsetting and slightly disillusioning for Scott to read posts by others who spoke of science over his head; he was outmatched. It had to be discomforting to read logical posts by others like Anon who used to push AGW, but became disillusioned by the data after beginning to see that or how the data have been manipulated.

      When I began to become disillusioned, I had a painful hurt in the pit of my stomach. It was like I was in the Twilight Zone. For the true believer, disillusionment is anything but easy. The initial response is rejection of disillusioning information – belligerence. It takes awhile; the deprogramming comes in waves.

      • Disillusioned says:

        It was a little easier for me, because I had no monetary incentive keeping me believing the dogma I had been fed and assumed was based on solid science. As it turned out I believed in an unproven hyped-pothesis.

      • RAH says:

        In my experience leftist wacko “teachers” are some of the most belligerent egotistical people one can have contact with. They try to treat adults like they’re there students. I learned that lesson long ago dealing with one A-hole that was the assistant principle of a HS in SE Ohio. Really an obnoxious and officious idiot. Tried to embarrass me in front of the kids. I turned the tables on him I think.

        • Disillusioned says:

          “Officious.”

          Excellent adjective.

          “I turned the tables on him I think.”

          Good for you. My leftist friends do not dare bring up the ice in the Arctic, sea levels, “record temperatures” – any article they just read or blip they saw on CNN about climate change, anymore.

          After I became disillusioned, in the beginning, they were confident they would shut me down. I turned the tables on them. With facts. (Facts are what brought me to disillusionment.)

          They now know they cannot debate me on AGW, or GHGs, etc.; there’s nothing they can say that can rattle me.

          Yet, they still want to believe, so they don’t dare bring it up; they’re protecting their Humpty Dumpty.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        ”I had a painful hurt in the pit of my stomach. It was like I was in the Twilight Zone.”

        True, that’s the feeling intellectually honest people experience when their position is credibly challenged and they must sort it out for themselves. It’s hard enough to be privately embarrassed in front of ourselves and our Creator. I know a few things about it myself.

        Then comes the public part. It is hard enough for people to admit they were completely wrong about their beliefs but in the past very few have reached beyond the immediate circle of family, friends, neighborhood and business.

        The internet made it possible to loudly broadcast our beliefs to the whole world. It takes strength and character to withdraw our claims in front of everyone and for the weak it becomes nearly impossible to admit they were wrong, especially if they created a proud public persona. As I watch various human affairs unfold, I see the fools entrenched in their publicized positions long after it’s clear they were wrong. They convince themselves being vindicated by all the other fools crouching in the same trenches.

        It is a miserable place of their own making.

        • Latitude says:

          …and seemingly totally unaware if the self damage

          Like Hillary and Waters

        • Disillusioned says:

          “They convince themselves being vindicated by all the other fools crouching in the same trenches.”

          An echo chamber of groupthinkers protecting their sacred Humpty Dumpty from falling off the wall.

          Ironically, like Scott, they think of themselves as intellectually superior, yet they are not critical thinkers and do not dare step out of line and question the dogma that they believe, with all their hearts, is “settled science.”

          Ptolemy’s geocentric model had a very long run – accepted as settled science for what, 13 or 14 centuries? It then took more than another century to die after the works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo challenged it as rubbish. Hopefully, today’s generally accepted as settled science – but lacking in scientific scrutiny – CO2-centric warming dogma doesn’t take quite as long to be cast onto the trash heap of failed scientific hypotheses.

  16. richard says:

    Scott Koontz has now beautifully proved Tony’s data as correct.

  17. RAH says:

    their not there.

  18. eternalOptimist says:

    The way I read it, Scott thought the code was wrong and Tony could find the problem in a few hours. The reason he thought it was wrong is because some websites he visits say its wrong.

    So…I think Nasa, NOAA and BOM are wrong. it should take you a few hours to fix it. get on with it.

    This is clearly idiotic thinking.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.