2015 Already Setting Heat Records

As explained above, Siegenthaler et al. 2005, and Etheridge 1998. Combine the raw data, run a 13-point LOESS smooth, then use cubic interpolation on the smooth to get an annual time series.

 

And obviously other smoothing and interpolating methods can be used, but they should give much the same results.

 

So, as true with much of the AGW/CC data, the graph is a lie... the data was not in fact direct observed.

 

Just like Mann's "hockey stick" model produced much the same results no matter what the data input.

 

Define "direct observed".

- - - Updated - - -

Completely untrue. You've been deceived by the ayatollahs of Denierstan.

 

You should get out more and do some reading. Mann's algorithms produced hockey sticks with red noise.

 

Actually, you're the one who should get out and read more. Mann's algorithms do not produce hockey sticks with red noise. It's McIntyre's algorithm which does that. Wanna know how Mr. Climate Audit fooled you?

He generated 10,000 red-noise time series, and then selected the 100 most hockey-stick-like series from that 10,000 -- the top 1%. And those were the series that generated hockey sticks from Mann's algorithm: data that actually had hockey sticks in them. Of course, any time you filter or select data, the filtered or selected data is no longer random, regardless of how it was generated.

You've been played, Hoosier. The ayatollahs of Denierstan have fooled another sucker. But don't feel too bad: McIntyre played Dr. Wegman too.

Read the complete details here.

 

Sigh, nobody with any respect in science is touching Mann's hockey stick after what has come out. Not one scientist entered a brief defending Mann in his lawsuit against Steyn.

 

So now the National Academy of Sciences is "nobody"? How easy it is to refute your falsehoods.

That's because Mann was the only scientist Steyn libelled.

 

By calling the hockey stick fraudulent. Don't you know what a supporting brief is?

 

Right, and since the hockey stick isn't fraudulent, and since no less that six investigations have determined that, Steyn libeled Mann with a falsehood.

 

Yet no one came to Mann's defense. Interesting no?

 

As I said before, Mann was the only scientist Steyn libeled. And as it turns out, he doesn't seem to need much help. So far, NRO's motion to dismiss was denied, Steyn's motion to dismiss was denied, Steyn's motion to vacate was denied. The court seems to think Mann has a case.

 

One judge that does not understand the scientific underpinnings. Not surprised. Steyn has a lot of briefs including the ACLU among other very well known organizations yet not one brief was entered for Mann. Not only that, Mann has lied in his own court case.

 

Also untrue. The original judge in the case also denied those same motions to dismiss, before her retirement. So those motions were actually rejected twice, by two different judges.

Looks like a case to me.

 

You are talking about two different cases. Steyn did not join the first one. Steyn is counter suing separately.

 

Nope. The denial of motions to dismiss occurred for the second time, by the second judge, in January 2014. Only after those motions were denied, in February 2014, did Steyn file his countersuit.

 

It goes both ways. The D.C. Court of Appeals denied Mann’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal. The fact is that poor little Mann is very thin skinned and cannot brook, as a public figure, criticism of his awesomeness so is litigious happy.

 

Translation: any data you deem to show to depict CO2 levels prior to 1958 is bogus. Extrapolate/interpolate all you like, the raw data is not there to exact a confirmation.

 

Translation: I'm a climate denier, so I will use any excuse to ignore all the data I want. Because in Denierstan, data is unimportant, only politics is.

Wake me up if you ever realize that knowledge is better than ignorance.

 

Translation, the current political meme is more important than fact.

 

a graph was displayed where it has been determined there is no CO2 data prior to 1958 to back it up. so I am not denying anything, I am presenting the facts. It has nothing to do with politics, but you enjoy yourself if it makes you feel good.

 

Utterly false. There is plenty of CO2 data prior to 1958 from ice core records, and I have linked to that data. So go ahead and continue to ignore, ignore, ignore that data, because ignorance is your stock-in-trade.

You just denied the existence of data that does exist. That sounds like denial to me.

No, you're denying facts and pretending it's the truth.

If it has nothing to do with politics, why did you deny the existence of data that does in fact exist?

 

Someone should introduce you to uncertainty someday.

 

The uncertainty in this case is considerably less than infinity.