NASA on UHI Effect

[Crick]

Yes it is.

And the Connolly clan is a family of loony-tunes and there is good reason they are neither employed in climate research nor published in any peer reviewed journal.

 

[IanC]

where did your post go that chastised me for calling Old Rocks Old Fraud? and where you said that who says something is more important than what is said?

I have had a lot of dealings with Old Rocks. I remember posting a thread about a paper that was going to be released on satellite imagery of global greenspace. actually it was a pro-AGW blogger's criticism of the paper because it was so dependant on start dates that a single year flipped it from pos to neg, and it wasnt even close to statistical significance. Old Fraud agreed that it wasnt science, but later that week when it was published and the press releases started coming out he was right there posting about how this new important report had come out and it showed how we were going to hell in a handbasket. he didnt even realize it was the same paper, and when I pointed it out to him he just ignored everything and continued to boast about how important it was. rinse and repeat. he continues to bring up Mann 2008, the upsidedown Tiljander paper that even Gavin Schmidt admitted was flawed to the point that it was useless before 1650, as if it was the latest word on Hockey Stick Graphs and proof positive that everything is just fine in CAGW land.

I see a lot of similarities between you and Old Rocks when it comes to ignoring evidence that is contrary to your world view. over and over again.

edit- sorry, I see that your comment was in a different thread.

 

[Crick]

where did your post go that chastised me for calling Old Rocks Old Fraud? and where you said that who says something is more important than what is said?

Not a clue. And I can believe I would chastise you for calling Old Rocks a fraud but if you think the latter sounds like me, you've got me confused with someone from another species.

I have had a lot of dealings with Old Rocks. I remember posting a thread about a paper that was going to be released on satellite imagery of global greenspace. actually it was a pro-AGW blogger's criticism of the paper because it was so dependant on start dates that a single year flipped it from pos to neg, and it wasnt even close to statistical significance. Old Fraud agreed that it wasnt science, but later that week when it was published and the press releases started coming out he was right there posting about how this new important report had come out and it showed how we were going to hell in a handbasket. he didnt even realize it was the same paper, and when I pointed it out to him he just ignored everything and continued to boast about how important it was. rinse and repeat. he continues to bring up Mann 2008, the upsidedown Tiljander paper that even Gavin Schmidt admitted was flawed to the point that it was useless before 1650, as if it was the latest word on Hockey Stick Graphs and proof positive that everything is just fine in CAGW land.

I see a lot of similarities between you and Old Rocks when it comes to ignoring evidence that is contrary to your world view. over and over again.

And yet you deny using ad hominem in these discussions...

edit- sorry, I see that your comment was in a different thread.

If you have a quote from me stating that who is more important than what, I want to either see it here in quotations with a link or I want to see a retraction.

 

[IanC]

where did your post go that chastised me for calling Old Rocks Old Fraud? and where you said that who says something is more important than what is said?

Not a clue. And I can believe I would chastise you for calling Old Rocks a fraud but if you think the latter sounds like me, you've got me confused with someone from another species.

I have had a lot of dealings with Old Rocks. I remember posting a thread about a paper that was going to be released on satellite imagery of global greenspace. actually it was a pro-AGW blogger's criticism of the paper because it was so dependant on start dates that a single year flipped it from pos to neg, and it wasnt even close to statistical significance. Old Fraud agreed that it wasnt science, but later that week when it was published and the press releases started coming out he was right there posting about how this new important report had come out and it showed how we were going to hell in a handbasket. he didnt even realize it was the same paper, and when I pointed it out to him he just ignored everything and continued to boast about how important it was. rinse and repeat. he continues to bring up Mann 2008, the upsidedown Tiljander paper that even Gavin Schmidt admitted was flawed to the point that it was useless before 1650, as if it was the latest word on Hockey Stick Graphs and proof positive that everything is just fine in CAGW land.

I see a lot of similarities between you and Old Rocks when it comes to ignoring evidence that is contrary to your world view. over and over again.

And yet you deny using ad hominem in these discussions...

edit- sorry, I see that your comment was in a different thread.

If you have a quote from me stating that who is more important than what, I want to either see it here in quotations with a link or I want to see a retraction.

three comments up, in #21.

you have repeatedly scoffed at reading anything that is written by someone not on your approved list. while you are not as bad as Old Rock, yet, you definitely are showing many of the same character flaws that I associate with him. just to a lesser degree.

 

[Crick]

I have repeatedly asserted that peer reviewed material is more reliable and more likely to be correct than self-published material like that put out by the Connnolly clan. The Connollys have repeatedly attempted to get published but they have failed, not because of who they are, but because their material does't hold up to expert evaluation.

No where "up in #21" did I say who was more important than what. I made no comparison.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Fraud and Circk just a flipin an a flopun doin what their handlers tell them....

 

[Crick]

And who do you believe to be my handlers?

 

[IanC]

when I started a thread on that particular paper you refused to read it, or discuss any of the results. instead you criticized that it was labelled version0.1, and that the author was not a climate scientist.

the paper, actually there are 3 papers I think on different aspects of GISS homogenization techniques, is a simple examination of actual GISS data. there is nothing special about it, GISS should have the same data and explanations easily available on its own website. this particular paper describes the two leg adjustments for urbanization. most people would assume because the population has grown to 7 billion people and many areas have become urbanized that there would be a net reduction of temperature by the adjustments. in reality it is almost exactly net neutral ( Berkeley BEST dataset actually adds to the trend for UHI adjustments!).

climate skeptics think it would be a good idea for an outside auditing agency to look over the climate data to remove mistakes, misidentifications, duplicates, etc. according to your mindset this is a bad idea because they are not 'climate scientists'.

 

[Crick]

What outside agency would you like to see in such a role Ian?

 

[IanC]

What outside agency would you like to see in such a role Ian?

A private firm like Price Waterhouse might be cheaper in the long run. Using arms length govt auditors might just add an ongoing level of bureaucracy. Bean counters don't think they are above counting beans like climate scientists do.

Clean up the files, add more transparency and independent confirmation that the adjustments are actually working correctly, before trillion dollar decisions are made.