To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[IanC]

There are greater divergences at several other times. And I wouldn't use Bob Tisdale's data to wipe my ass.

What an odd thing to say.

Tisdale uses publicly archived datasets. Are you saying that the data available to the public is incorrect or manipulated in some way?

 

[IanC]

Crick- for someone who whined for an answer to Sou's hit piece on Spencer, you sure disappeared in a hurry. An unsupported ad hom against Tisdale is the best you can do? Trying to change the subject perhaps? Wanna deconstruct Sou's hit piece on Tisdale as well? I will if you will but I have a feeling you'll just run away again. You don't even understand this stuff anyways, so it's a waste of time pointing out things for you.

 

[mamooth]

Ian, the funniest thing about your "It's turtles all the way down!" philosophy is how you pretend it's not your philosophy. That is, every time you're asked to justify your conspiracy, you do so by invoking more conspiracy.

If we point out how the surface data says all your theories are wacky, you declare the surface data is faked.

I could point out how the balloon data agrees with the surface data, and disagrees with your satellite model. And you'd say that's faked, and the real balloon data agrees with you.

I could point out the tropospheric hot spot is there, you'd declare that data is faked.

I could point out how the sea level rise is impossible to explain without the rising temps. And you'd call the sea level data faked.

And so on. You always come back to that same tactic, telling us that any information you don't like is faked. And then you have the gall to project your own staple tactic on to the rational people. You're not worth anyone's time now, except as someone to point at to support the premise of this thread's title. If we were after original paranoid conspiracy nonsense, we could get it straight from WUWT, JoNova or McIntyre.

Now to be fair, paranoid conspiracy theores aren't your only tactic. You also evade and run. For example, when shown Sou's demolition of Spencer, you ran off on a tangent, avoided the topic, and then declared victory.

You can proceed with the name calling now, which is your third staple tactic.

 

[jc456]

Ian, the funniest thing about your "It's turtles all the way down!" philosophy is how you pretend it's not your philosophy. That is, every time you're asked to justify your conspiracy, you do so by invoking more conspiracy.

If we point out how the surface data says all your theories are wacky, you declare the surface data is faked.

I could point out how the balloon data agrees with the surface data, and disagrees with your satellite model. And you'd say that's faked, and the real balloon data agrees with you.

I could point out the tropospheric hot spot is there, you'd declare that data is faked.

I could point out how the sea level rise is impossible to explain without the rising temps. And you'd call the sea level data faked.

And so on. You always come back to that same tactic, telling us that any information you don't like is faked. And then you have the gall to project your own staple tactic on to the rational people. You're not worth anyone's time now, except as someone to point at to support the premise of this thread's title. If we were after original paranoid conspiracy nonsense, we could get it straight from WUWT, JoNova or McIntyre.

Now to be fair, paranoid conspiracy theores aren't your only tactic. You also evade and run. For example, when shown Sou's demolition of Spencer, you ran off on a tangent, avoided the topic, and then declared victory.

You can proceed with the name calling now, which is your third staple tactic.

so isn't that what you're doing? I mean dude/dudette, what a hypocrite. It's hilarious the ignorance the likes of you libturds present in here. YOu have described yourself to a frken 'T'.

Leading us back to the real point and that is you deny the conspiracy that is real. Pointed out by very qualified individuals. And you and yours go out of your way to justify it. Then post a post like this with absolutely no realization that you're describing your own selves. Thanks for the continued entertainment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

Yup

Smog = Smoke + Water Vapor (FOG)... it is not caused by global warming... I see your in the club with Crick and Old Crock. How is the "Idiots are Us" club making out these days? Wait... Failure is easily seen!

You're so dumb. Smog is caused by companies and that causes agw. Now stfu

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.. Baseless fact-less bull shit..

 

[mamooth]

From Moyhu, this graph shows the adjustments to the surface temps and satellite temps in the last 10 years.

Deniers are having a meltdown over surface adjustments of 0.01C, which is completely insignificant compared to the magnitude of the current warming.

In contrast, the UAH satellite temperature model output has been massively adjusted to show more cooling.

The point is that deniers are dishonest hypocrites on this topic. The satellite model output has been adjusted about ten times as much as the surface temperatures, yet the deniers embrace that massively adjusted data while simultaneously claiming they reject such adjusted data.

And that's reason #207 why the whole planet correctly defines denialism as a liars' cult.

 

[IanC]

From Moyhu, this graph shows the adjustments to the surface temps and satellite temps in the last 10 years.

Deniers are having a meltdown over surface adjustments of 0.01C, which is completely insignificant compared to the magnitude of the current warming.

In contrast, the UAH satellite temperature model output has been massively adjusted to show more cooling.

The point is that deniers are dishonest hypocrites on this topic. The satellite model output has been adjusted about ten times as much as the surface temperatures, yet the deniers embrace that massively adjusted data while simultaneously claiming they reject such adjusted data.

And that's reason #207 why the whole planet correctly defines denialism as a liars' cult.

Hahahaha. This should be good.

First thoughts on the graph you posted. Why are different versions of UAH being compared, while the SAME versions of GISS are being compared to themselves?

I'll go read Stoke's rationalizations now. You can be sure I'll have something to say about it. Hahahaha. 0.01C in adjustments over the last 35 years!!!!! Hahahaha. I guess if you're going to tell a lie you might as well make it a big one!

 

[IanC]

Stoke's article is about satellite readings for the most part. I am not sure which GISS datasets they are comparing.

Here is a maturity graph for GISS 2008 vs the latest available data, Nov2015.

Is it possible that the block of red 1979-2015 is only 0.01C when compared against itself? Perhaps. But it is still 0.10 warmer than the initial values.

Stoke's himself admits the adjustments are much larger if the full range and usual reference period are used.

I take back my accusation against Stokes and replace it with an accusation of misdirection and misleading against the Pooh flinging monkey.

 

[IanC]

Context for my previous post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mammooths computer as of 5 minutes ago:

Googles Search: AGWCult propaganda to debunk Ian's charts

 

[mamooth]

Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.

It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.

Also interesting how Ian so steadfastly refuses to discuss the validity of the surface station adjustments. He just keeps declaring they must be faked, solely because he doesn't like them.

Ian, you might want to now throw some more graphs up to deflect from the bankruptcy of your position, as is your usual tactic.

It is good, of course, that Ian has narrowed down the conspiracy origin to be after 1995, but before 2005. If we prod him more, maybe we can get an exact date.

 

[jc456]

Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.

It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.

Also interesting how Ian so steadfastly refuses to discuss the validity of the surface station adjustments. He just keeps declaring they must be faked, solely because he doesn't like them.

Ian, you might want to now throw some more graphs up to deflect from the bankruptcy of your position, as is your usual tactic.

It is good, of course, that Ian has narrowed down the conspiracy origin to be after 1995, but before 2005. If we prod him more, maybe we can get an exact date.

look who is posting paranoia. funny dude/dudette.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.

It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.

Also interesting how Ian so steadfastly refuses to discuss the validity of the surface station adjustments. He just keeps declaring they must be faked, solely because he doesn't like them.

Ian, you might want to now throw some more graphs up to deflect from the bankruptcy of your position, as is your usual tactic.

It is good, of course, that Ian has narrowed down the conspiracy origin to be after 1995, but before 2005. If we prod him more, maybe we can get an exact date.

Translation: I posted a graph, therefore I win

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Sou | 7:39 AM

Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

Sou 21 May 2014



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans. Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:


Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees. In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:


Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4. This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:


Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers. Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.




That's not all that he's done. If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year. That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline. Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:


Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005. Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.

Dr Spencer is correct.. Your SKS clowns are cherry picking start points and altering the graphing which your to stupid to see. You are so gullible.. You eat everything John Cook posts as truth... a proven liar and deception ass clown..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Stoke's article is about satellite readings for the most part. I am not sure which GISS datasets they are comparing.

Here is a maturity graph for GISS 2008 vs the latest available data, Nov2015.

Is it possible that the block of red 1979-2015 is only 0.01C when compared against itself? Perhaps. But it is still 0.10 warmer than the initial values.

Stoke's himself admits the adjustments are much larger if the full range and usual reference period are used.

I take back my accusation against Stokes and replace it with an accusation of misdirection and misleading against the Pooh flinging monkey.

And your supersized by that?

 

[IanC]

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Sou | 7:39 AM

Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

Sou 21 May 2014



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans. Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:


Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees. In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:


Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4. This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:


Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers. Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.




That's not all that he's done. If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year. That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline. Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:


Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005. Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.

Dr Spencer is correct.. Your SKS clowns are cherry picking start points and altering the graphing which your to stupid to see. You are so gullible.. You eat everything John Cook posts as truth... a proven liar and deception ass clown..

Sou declares that Spencer has responded , and she has had to rebut his deception yet again.

what was Spencer's response? a comment on her blog

Roy SpencerMay 21, 2014 at 12:48 AM
we aligned all of the observations so that the *5 year average* at the beginning of the record (1979-1983) was the starting point. There is NO deception here, nothing nefarious, as you suggest. You can make your own graphs to suggest we did the same as you, but we didn't.

did Sou explain the normalization of graph comparisons in any meaningful way? No. that is why illiterate regurgitators like crick think Spencer was rebutted, rather than just the victim of a slime attack on his character.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Sou | 7:39 AM

Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

Sou 21 May 2014



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans. Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:


Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees. In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:


Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4. This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:


Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers. Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.




That's not all that he's done. If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year. That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline. Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:


Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005. Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.

Dr Spencer is correct.. Your SKS clowns are cherry picking start points and altering the graphing which your to stupid to see. You are so gullible.. You eat everything John Cook posts as truth... a proven liar and deception ass clown..

Sou declares that Spencer has responded , and she has had to rebut his deception yet again.

what was Spencer's response? a comment on her blog

Roy SpencerMay 21, 2014 at 12:48 AM
we aligned all of the observations so that the *5 year average* at the beginning of the record (1979-1983) was the starting point. There is NO deception here, nothing nefarious, as you suggest. You can make your own graphs to suggest we did the same as you, but we didn't.

did Sou explain the normalization of graph comparisons in any meaningful way? No. that is why illiterate regurgitators like crick think Spencer was rebutted, rather than just the victim of a slime attack on his character.

Funny, that is why they call her SLANDERING SOU... because she is ignorant and lies like a rug.. With John Cook at her side flapping his yap in lock step the two of them are just useless fools and liars.. Too bad there are so few real scientists here that recognize this bull shit for what it is..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.

It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.

Also interesting how Ian so steadfastly refuses to discuss the validity of the surface station adjustments. He just keeps declaring they must be faked, solely because he doesn't like them.

Ian, you might want to now throw some more graphs up to deflect from the bankruptcy of your position, as is your usual tactic.

It is good, of course, that Ian has narrowed down the conspiracy origin to be after 1995, but before 2005. If we prod him more, maybe we can get an exact date.

When looking at NORMALIZED TRENDS you always zero base a point in time and align anomaly trend lines for comparison. Its taught in first year statistical analysis.

Just like slandering Sou you and crick dont know shit from shinola..

 

[IanC]

I didnt realize she was affiliated with Cook by anything other than ideology.

different blogs have different styles. Hotwhopper (Sou) is specifically aimed at vilifying some of the more prominent skeptics. ATTP is similar. Tamino's blog was invented just to dish out insults that would be unseemly for the Hockey Team's scientists to utter.

 

[Crick]

Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong