Silly you! Of course global warming is behind frigid temps MOD ALERT

Ignorant statement, obviously you have never used woodfortrees.org.

 

I'm used to dealing with more informed climate catastrophists, but they're as equally ready with ad hominem and insults as those that post here.
It's probably the only one thing they all have in common.

 

I couldnt care less what you thought of the authors of the articles and cant help but notice you dont dispute their claims.

 

I think they probably do know that picking the data set with the least change is going to back them up

- - - Updated - - -

I always know when people run out of argument - the Ad Homs start

 

We can do that too - in fact there is REAMS of information out there showing how WUWT and others massage, cherry pick and otherwise misrepresent data

 

That's basically what I said.

Fail!

You're unable to produce even one piece of massaged data by WUWT.

As I said, your earlier post on that subject constitutes blatant libel, which is normally frowned on by those who run internet forums.

 

I'm rather consistent one which datasets I use and why.

There are 4, 2 land based CRU and GISS, 2 satellite RSS and UAH. For any time frame that predates the satellite record I use CRU because it is the better of the land based temperature records. For any time frame exclusively during the satellite record I use RSS. It is not scientifically justifiable to use land based records for present data as because the satellites are vastly superior. That would be like choosing to believe an x-ray over and MRI. I choose to use the RSS because warmmongers get their panties in a bunch about Roy Spencer and his UAH record. Since I dont want to get in a sidetrack argument with (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags over Roy Spencer being a Christian I use RSS.

Buzz off now!

 

Why am I reminded of the last little exchange we had over your favorite Nazi cartoonist cherry picking

That was over a week ago. You never responded. Yet you still continue to cite the cherry picked out of date source on IR dimming.

In short we know who is the one who relies on cherry picked evidence from this guy.


Seriously who reads a blog from a cartoonist who has photoshopped pictures of himself as Himmler?

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/hotwhopper-fodder-denier-don.html

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/a-closer-look-at-climate-studies-promoted-before-publicatio/?_r=0

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent.html

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/cooling-the-planet-with-fake-trend-lines-deniers-making-up-cooling-trends-with-cherry-picked-data-all-the-rage/

 

You must have not understood the scientific refutation hidden in plain language.

Dr. Spencer - I refuted his claim anyone with even rudimentary scientific knowledge knows that utilizing a very short baseline of measurement is completely insufficient proof of major long term trends.

As far as watts, he is just another denialist blogger who appears more interested in political statements than actual science. He also attempts to claim a short term baseline is sufficient proof.

But I can totally understand how you might think these two particular dissenters of generally accepted scientific research and opinion wouldn't possibly attempt to create arguments to win support from the scientifically ignorant.

 

Hotwhopper
Dotearth
SkepticalScienice
Tamino
Watchingthedeniers

We were asking for real arguments not links to insane warmmonger bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!

Can you even make your own argument?

 

But your insane denialist bullcrap is perfectly valid. qu'elle suprise.

http://wottsupwiththat.com/about/


Is noaa a credible enough source?

 

No because of multiple reasons.

#1 Adjusting the scale of graphs to make it look like they correlate isn't science. Its a cheap parlor trick designed to fool the stupid. You can get just as good of a visual correlation using temperature and Caribbean pirates.



#2 When you do the actual math CO2 and temperature don't correlate.
http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TM...eory_of_Global_Warming_Nature_Paper091209.pdf

You fall for cheep tricks.

 

Want to make a bet???

Tell you what I will bet I can find more misrepresented data on WUWT than you can on Skeptical Science - loser to pay Political Forum a donation toward expenses

 

Show us where they are wrong - I mean it is easy enough to do that with WUWT and others so why not do it with the list above - instead what we see are personal attacks on the people running the sites

 

Well that would first require the person giving the links to make an argument and not just put up blanket links. This is a debate forum not a link dump.

Second from the list I already see two frauds. Tamino aka Grant Foster the fake statistician who's statistical firm Google maps to an empty field in rural Connecticut and John Cook the cartoonist now taxpayer funded propagandist who likes to have himself photoshopped as Himmler. So I really don't give what they say much credence.

 

Oooh! A paper cited by

Hockeyschtick
Cimatedepot (my favourite for outright lies)
Defendingthetruth (a name that almost ensures they will be lying)
and
Boat Design (although I would have thought they would be looking forward to rising sea levels - Lol)

What I cannot find is

A) where this paper has been published http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/C396/2012/esdd-3-C396-2012-supplement.pdf
b) What a couple of economists are doing dabbling in physics

But there is a refutation of this "paper" http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/219/2013/esdd-4-219-2013.html

And finally from what I can research the only thing it really proves is the old saying "There are lies Damned lies and statistics"

 

Who gives a damn who has cited the paper.

As to D. F. Hendry's paper I agree to the point that the data is poor and so did Beenstock. The temperature data is too noisy and incomplete, Beenstock said as much. The catch 22 of course is that applies not only to Beenstock but every other attempt to correlate temperature and CO2. As IPCC author Dr. Richard Tol pointed out.

As to Hendry's insistance that becasue CO2 is a greenhouse gas that a signal must be there its poor at best. The Beenstock paper looks at the total system and doesn't' assume that one variable is enough to overcome other signals in the system.

"Thus, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the amount of absorption and hence re-radiation. To establish otherwise merely prompts the question where are the errors in the Beenstock et al. analysis?."

Hendry begins with the assumption that temperature and CO2 have to correlate because of the physical mechanism. This ignores any other factors in the system.

While you accuse me of cherry picking that is exactly what Hendry did as they do show that you can chooses smaller scales and show correlation they fail to offer any explanation about how and why the breaks over the longer period occur.

In the end its simply a quickly don't Soros funded hit piece, Open Society Foundation funded it FYI. So it no surprise that the authors reached the conclusion they did as stretched as it might be.

And they aren't dabbling in physics at all. They are statisticians dabbling in statistics. They are testing the validity of numbers behind the physics. That is fundamental to science.

 

Yes, it was. That was Valley Forge and the Delaware crossing during the revolution. It even got so bad, they did not have a summer, it was cold. Their have been several summers where it only seemed like a long spring. The climate has not changed and if it has, it has been so insignificant that it does not make a difference. The hottest years in human history was back when the Roman Empire was still in existence.

The Black Panthers have been and still are a racist group. They posted men outside of the voting centers during the 2008 and 2012 election (KKK did the same thing). They called him a racist even though he has taught black children, they sent him death threats and posted wanted posters with a reward for his death, yet his happens every day in the black communities between gangs of kids of the same age? That is racism. When the President said that he could have been Travon Martin when their lives are so vastly different. If that's the case i could have been Travon too, right? Wrong... the president only has race in common with him, that is racism. Racism has many faces both left and right. Hitler, David Duke, and Louis Farrakhan have a lot in common, all see their groups as a collective only connected by race, all cannot think rationally or see that we are all people, and all have hatred of the Jews.

 

Attacking the person and not the site - is that not what we were just accused of (or was that other threads and other times - it has been done often enough)

 

AH! - So when WE find that a paper/site/person has been openly funded by the oil/coal/energy industry then that is not of concern and irrelevant but it is OK to make allegations (unsupported) about someone who DARES - DARES I TELL YOU! to rebut a dodgy paper - one that does not even rebut AGW

- - - Updated - - -

Got a link to MEASURED TRENDED DATA?

 

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

 

When you find watts phottoshoping himself as Himler or giving a fake address to a fake employment I will be right with you condemning him.

 

Your "warmmongers" are sure tearing your Watts to shreds.

 

Not in this world.

They just provided some links to some blogs run by proven frauds with no quotes or comments mainly because they dont have the whit to understand the argument themselves.

I read it on a blog run by a cartoonist who photoshops himself as Himler isnt much of an argument.