I started the day with Anthony Watts sending an E-Mail to an alarmist saying that I am worse than Michael Mann, because I use only raw, untampered data.
Then Zeke stopped by and said that my objection to using anomalies was for a “different kind of anomaly.” All he wants me to do is to double count (I will explain this in a later post) lost rural station data via infilling and gridding, and lose any possibility of detecting the huge baseline shifts that have occurred.
Then Suarez bared his teeth.
You can’t make this stuff up.
fun times…….
I think Suarez is a personal warning from Watts…
Okay, I give, who is Suarez?
The Cannibal.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/the-liverpool-cannibal-is-back-in-action/
A few dumb questions here: Didn’t you put together (multiple times, as I recall) raw data ONLY from continuously operated stations? Isn’t there maybe a way to then kill some of those so you don’t get a falsely dense set of temps from urban areas, leaving you with a smaller but still raw set of data? Why the h_ll is anyone adjusting anything? I may be a naive dullard, but to me it seems adjusted = corrupted.
The stations without missing data show no warming since 1990. All of the warming is due to fake data.
Where is all this unadjusted global data you speak of Steven? 😉
Meanwhile Antarctic sea ice anomaly is 2nd highest on record.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
If Anthony et al have a case, they should show the math. I don’t go over there so much any more, but I haven’t seen any rebuttal when I’ve been there.
Just ask Anthony if he plans to use those mirrors to heat his home this winter.
+10! … EXACTLY!
-1
Oh yeah, _Jim is replacing his heating system with mirrors also.
Big expense, but the savings will come this winter….
Misrepresentation of the science; -1
Hang in there, Steven.
Steve,
I don’t understand. Why on earth would Anthony want to ignore the massive and blatant manipulation of the temperature record? You have shown that the “warming” is due to government drones fiddling with the record. Why would we not want that information out there? Beats all.
“Why on earth would Anthony want to ignore the massive and blatant manipulation of the temperature record?”
He apparently believes that the adjustments are valid and/or are “small details”. Remember this is the guy that is gung ho over station siting (and rightly so).. you know, those things that make *actual* observations.
Mind boggling.
Well, Anthony (with help from a lot of volunteers) did a huge amount of work about poor location of weather stations and the way that they had gone, over time, from open areas to urban areas or placed on tarmac’s or next to air conditioning vents. He even published a peer reviewed paper on the results.
Now Steven has exposed that all of Anthony’s excellent work is trivial compared to the wholesale fabrication and falsification of US land based temperature data. Anthony is has “skin in this game” and is becoming territorial and protective. He is becoming more and more “selective” about his sceptisism and a gatekeepper about what is “valid” discussion in the climate field.
He is very much a “luke warmer” and is heading towards dogma just as the alarmists are already wallowing in it.
So true.
“Such is professional jealousy; a scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he did not start himself.”
Mark Twain
Thousands died because the medical community could not accept the proven fact that pellegra was caused by diet, not germs.
Known by another name in the ‘practical’ world; the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.
Wiki sums it up: NIH – the philosophy of social, corporate, or institutional cultures that avoid using or buying already existing products, research, standards, or knowledge because of their external origins and costs. The reasons for not wanting to use the work of others are varied, but can include fear through lack of understanding, an unwillingness to value the work of others, or forming part of a wider “turf war”.
As a social phenomenon, this philosophy manifests as an unwillingness to adopt an idea or product because it originates from another culture, a form of tribalism. The term is normally used in a pejorative sense. The opposite predisposition is sometimes called “proudly found elsewhere” (PFE) or invented here.
– – – – – –
One sees this in the ‘engineering world’ quite often. Story has it J. Fred Bucy (TI CEO way back when) went ballistic upon seeing an HP calculator in a meeting in the board room one time … another of his insistences was the use of the TI TMS9900 microprocessors in the TI 99/4 “Home Computer”. TI at the time manufactured no other architecture uCs. The 9900 series had some through-put issues not mention an odd requirement for a multi-phase clock and _no_ hardware registers (excepting the Program counter and a pointer to a “register set” residing in anywhere in addressable memory! This made for ‘slowed down’ program execution right off the bat.)
.
…in the ‘practical’ world; the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.
Other wise know as shear bullheaded stupidity, commonly found in men.
(Twists, ducks and runs…)
“..lose any possibility of detecting the huge baseline shifts that have occurred”
This has me picturing Zeke putting a blanket over his head.
OK. I just read the post at Reason.com and see that Watts is still trying to look like the “reasonable” skeptic. Those poor misunderstood government minions have just made a few “bureaucratic bungling that produces what he thinks is a significant artificial warming signal in the lower 48 temperature records”. Hmmmmm. I think Watts just does not like anyone pointing out the real truth about the corrupted data record.
Booted you off the WUWT site for holding a scientific opinion that he did not like? Wow.
Anthony and Mosher got very upset when I pointed out that Antarctica gets below the freezing point of CO2, and he kicked me off his blog. Years later, he still apparently hasn’t grasped the not very subtle difference between the freezing point and the frost point.
This post from three weeks ago was my most recent attempt to educate him on that topic.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/antarctica-gets-cold-enough-to-freeze-co2/
What do you expect from a guy that believes placing a mirror in front of a lightbulb will actually make the lightbulb (filament) hotter. According to Watts, I should be able to surround a lightbulb with mirrors and create runaway heating to burn down my house and destroy the universe. Time/space continuum thing perhaps? … hmmm… dunno
Yes … I nearly did that once … not a recommended experiment.
/only partial sarc
I’m curious to know what you think happens. It is not what most people think or are prepared to believe.
“Booted you off the WUWT site for holding a scientific opinion that he did not like? Wow”
Mainly because Steve was completely wrong, it was not an opinion by Steve, it was a claim and the claim was shown to be wrong.
CO2 does not even freeze out, as Steve still claims, it’s the wrong word, deposition is correct. Unfortunately the deposition does not happen at the temperatures in the Antarctic due to the low partial pressure of the CO2. It would have to be a lot colder. You might as well claim it is happening in Florida or somewhere else not as cold, but the original article was trying to indicate how cold the Antarctic was.
Steve will not admit to it still, because he’s stubborn … you see! 🙂
Andy
Dim. That’s exactly what his most recent article details. Dim.
I was one of the principals in the CO2 debacle. I’m a bit surprised it still bothers me, so I’m almost relieved to hear it still bothers Anthony.
The original article is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/ and said it was so cold it “would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.”
And you are still completely clueless about the topic.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/antarctica-gets-cold-enough-to-freeze-co2/
I’m starting to feel a bit like a broken record here. If you are using absolute temperatures and you station network is not consistent over time, you will get biased results. This is a replay of an issue that EM Smith brought up back in 2010; you can see the discussion here, and there is quite a bit about absolutes vs. anomalies in the comment thread: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/timeline-of-the-march-of-the-thermometers-meme/
A simple example of why your method does not work is what happens when you apply it to global temperatures rather than only the U.S.: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/
Zeke,
My whole point is to detect inconsistencies in the network. Your approach masks them.
I am doing sanity testing. You are bypassing the sanity testing, and trying to apply high precision to data which has very poor accuracy. Until you can grasp the fundamental problem with what you are doing, you aren’t going to make any progress.
This is beginning to look like a can’t see the forest for the trees problem. That is, someone who is too involved in the details of an issue to look at the situation as a whole and is having difficulty breaking it down into its common, elemental parts so others can understand.
.
… and there is ‘risk’ in taking ‘another look’ (that look from afar) at what one is doing; one may realize at some point the methodology is flawed after all.
Zeke, I am happy to seem like a broken record. Your computer modeling (video gaming) is NOT science. I can take any data you present, and show an elephant wiggling his ears, tail, and (body part of your choice).
Stop massaging the data, and take a look outside your basement.
Zeke, why does the Final USHCN data change very day?
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/ushcn-2-5-omg-the-old-data-changes-every-day/
Because in climatology the arrow of time works backwards. 😉
To top of it all off John Cook’s UQ issues a press release that it is tough to find evidence of climate change in the oceans, but that “sea level rise could damage marine systems by 2050.” WTF?
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/06/study-grapples-ocean-climate-stress-challenge
That might be because “Climate” applies to the atmosphere. I have trouble finding evidence of global warming in volcanoes but can I have some money to study it too? God help us when the tide comes in today. 97% of us are doomed.
Looks like Zeke’s et al., are getting desperate. No one is paying attention. Watts made a HUGE mistake in posting a reply the way he did on Lucia’s Climate Trivia site. Climate lukewarmism is FINITO they dont’ seem to get it LOL
Should have added Climate Modeling is FINITO LOL
I’m not sure what Mr. Watts claim is all about – as raw data is the only the data that matters, clearly – but I grow really tired of the damned double-speak that appears everywhere now. Even your site I grow tired of… don’t get me wrong Mr. Goddard, you and Mr. Watts site are the only climate debate websites that really the ones I frequent any more. But the politics and infighting and annoying amounts of sarcasm is starting to wear thin. Just stick to facts, science, historical articles, and figures and I will definitely keep visiting here. If not, well, have fun arguing with each other.
I’ve ignored Anthony’s backstabbing for years, but unfortunately he stepped too far over the line today.
Anthony has an extreme case of paranoia. In his mind, everyone is out to get him. If his mustache was on fire, and you told him, he would turn the fire hose on you!
Sad, because most of us used to love WUWT. But, his censorship of “REAL science” annoys the “REAL scientist” in all of us.
Ditto…
When I used to frequent Anthony’s site I seldom went to WUWT for Anthony’s opinion, which has become exceedingly difficult to follow, but for the comments from other posters. In the case of Real Science, I get to enjoy both.
It is disturbing to say the least that Anthony thought it wise to get pissy with Steven only to get severely wounded from friendly fire.
I think both Watts and Goddard should ask McIntyre to weigh in. Goddard is 100% correct in my book, and I want Watts to quickly recant because he is wrong. This is about the science, not ‘massaging’ the message to get alarmists to like. With Anthony’s latest posts on WUWT, one can tell he senses an opening perhaps not having been attained before, in the MSM reporting of skeptics data and science. I’m sure he doesn’t want a pretty blunt Goddard spoiling his gains. I understand this, but Anthony has to admit that Steve’s science is spot on. There really is no other answer to this data question other than intentional misuse by government.
good write up here by Suyts
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/sigh-skeptics-doing-what-skeptics-do-best-attack-skeptics/#comments
Well he never censored me, but I think they should call a truce. In any case Stevens site is more relevant to the climate issues as it shows clear data manipulation using the perpetrators own data. Unless WUWT realizes that the game is really over and that pushing posts using fraudulent data such as NOAA, GISS, BEST etc by Zeke and similares,will only dilute his audience to that of Lucia’s which usually posts benign, irrelevant postings about theoretical models of temperatures which are of limited interest (for me anyway) LOL
Eliza says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:55 am
Well he never censored me….
>>>>>>>
Eliza, try explaining to Anthony why he cannot look in a mirror and warm his face. If you present the exact science, you will be censored.
If not, let us know. (Accept no diversions or obfuscations.)
What’s the temperature of your mirror on the wall geran?
I kind of have faith in the idea that spectral reflectivity loss of energy at all wavelengths
I have had faith in the 2nd law for a long time, that faith has never failed me yet
spectral reflectivity less than one implies loss of energy at all wavelengths
Dilute what? Criticism? Humor? there is always someone else’s opinion to control anyway! apparently! 🙂
What watts says here
“It is my view that while NOAA/NCDC is not purposely “fabricating” data, their lack of attention to detail in the process has contributed to a false warming signal in the USA, and they don’t much care about it because it is in line with their expectations of warming. The surface temperature record thus becomes a product of bureaucracy and not of hard science…Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence”.
is not substantially very different to what Steven “feels” about data manipulation in any case I really don’t see much of a difference in viewpoint in any case. However I do believe NOAA/NCDC are in fact fabricating data and doing it on purpose.This is where I disagree with Watts.. ..
” However I do believe NOAA/NCDC are in fact fabricating data
Institutionalized processes at this point executed by ‘lifers’* in the organization, and it serves a purpose – winning funding. Good luck on weening them off that ‘formula’.
.
* “Lifer” – Old Navy (and industry) acronym for Lazy, Inefficient Fraudster Expecting Retirement, used to describe someone who does as little as humanly possible and is just waiting to collect his or her pension.
The problem with the statement is that it is statistically impossible (or, should I say: absurdly implausible) for the manipulation to be solely a function of incompetence. The manipulation is demonstrably systematic, and intentional.
Too much ‘brain power’ involved (PhDs et al in the organizations directly tied into this PLUS the other heavily degreed eyeballs in outside orgs performing active review of published papers) to be simple incompetence. This leaves open the more tenable explanation that direct, systemic, although incremental changes implemented over a period of years (almost gaining the same benefit as if performed under the cover of the ‘dark of night’) as the more likely scenario. The ‘slow boiling of a frog in water’ comes to mind regarding the rate at which the changes have been incorporated; no one has taken much interest since nothing really ‘stood out’ as a red flag. Close scrutiny and a top to bottom look at raw data comparing that to the homogenized/pasteurized product from the national agencies shows differences that are hard to reconcile or rationalize back to the physical reality of the original temperature measurements.
.
They are intentionally fabricating the data.
The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and it was ratified 21/03/94
The UN Framework’s official definition of “Climate change” :
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes. Now it was up to the USA to SUPPORT that treaty.
Steve has the rest of the time line here:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
CAGW has ALWAYS been about politics and never about science.
BTW The USA goverment has deleted the page you used to show the original data
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html
Thanks for the link Eliza.
I don’t get it.
The EPA shows that US rainfall has hardly changed in 100 years and yet alarmists are freaking out about drought. Can’t they read a chart?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/precipitation.html
The heatwave index and the rainfall anomaly index show no trend, thus no correlation with CO2. Pretty straight-forward.
Connecting a few dots:
The Dust Bowl started in 1931 +88 years = 2019
March 19, 2007: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
And that is not the only paper.
The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate
Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden
Multidecadal to multicentury scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium
You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realize there has been a change in the sun and the weather patterns are shifting, especially after this winter. I doubt very much scientists actually believe the CAGW drivel they are spouting to continue the grant money flowing.
I do however believe those with a vested interest will grab onto a drought with both hands and scream how mankind is causing it. I already ran into some idiot site whining about “Your Water Foot Print” In intelligence circles, it is called “a preparation of the battle space”
The idiot site was National Geographic and there is a pointer from none other than Julian Huxley’s UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education
https://www.facebook.com/UnescoIHE/posts/118687544848350
So there is a candidate for the next Alarmist Crisis. (Destroying dams and reservoirs especially in California ain’t gonna help matters.)
Apparently its back up now sorry or has it been changed?
Steve, screw them. You’re correct, and have shown you’re correct. The data is what it is, and there’s no amount of rationalization which changes the facts.
My thoughts are here…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/sigh-skeptics-doing-what-skeptics-do-best-attack-skeptics/
Thanks suyts! Awesome.
The global warming/climate change theory is a scam, a con, a fraud. Steven Goddard has the smoking gun – Data Tampering ! If Anthony Watts can’t see this and won’t admit the obvious, then he isn’t the man I thought he was.
I don’t understand climate realists who play nice with people who are nothing but ruthless crooks. The alarmists belong in jail.
Steve, or Tony, or whoever, you said
“I started the day with Anthony Watts sending an E-Mail to an alarmist saying that I am worse than Michael Mann, because I use only raw, untampered data.”
He didn’t say that, you quoted yourself what he said
“He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO”
You have to admit you are stubborn, although reading your blog for years, and enjoying it, you do make some errors but never do admit to them.
Even the blog name, like your own, seems not to be true. It’s not real science, it’s personal beliefs and bias.
However having said that you come out with some interesting stuff on the Arctic.
Andy
Andy, perhaps you forgot to mention this blog does not censor science. THAT is the reason it is called “REAL science”. You are quick to point out mistakes by this site, but how many mistakes have been made over at WUWT?
People that do not see their own bias do not make good scientists.
You don’t know the context behind his remark.
Steve, can you try presenting this to Senator Inhoffe ? If we can get Congressional recognition of this fraud the public will gain a broader understanding of it as well as many congressional members oblivious to it as well. Then there may be more resolve in congress after the midterms to reign in the put of control EPA and maybe more after 2016.
Good Idea.
Thanks Gail. Too bad this thread is already stale, but I hope he tries. By the way, I’ve always loved your posts, more than anyone elses, and have read many of the links you often include – especially on the agricultural agri-business, among others. Keep it up !