First off, don’t call me Shirley!

Anyway, you’re trying to re-frame the argument. That doesn’t work very well here; unlike True Believers, skeptics start out being skeptical.

The fact is that these “adjustments” are almost always made to show greater warming than the raw data shows. Massaging the data to achieve a desired result is done all. The. Time. Therefore, the final product is highly questionable. And skeptics, unlike True Believers, question. It’s the basis of the Scientific Method, believe it or not. If you like, I have more blink gifs showing the same type of upward temperature adjustment. All of them show higher temps following adjustment. All of them. What are the odds, eh?

Someone is diddling with the numbers. The surface station record is unreliable. You can accept their massaged result at face value; I’m not that naive. There are $billions at stake. And scientists are human, you know. A tweak her and a tweak there could result in a seven figure grant. The climate peer review system has been gamed. It can no longer be trusted. If you don’t believe that, there’s nothing I can do… except give you some helpful advice for the overly trusting: don’t answer any of those emails from Nigeria. They’re not really holding millions for you.

Which brings me to my final comment on this old thread [you can have the last word, or follow me to a more modern thread].

Of course all peer reviewed papers are not junk. But trust has been broken because of bad peer review, especially in the climate sciences. You couldn’t possibly have read everything I posted, so your mind is already made up and can’t be changed rationally. When emotion rules, logic is defenestrated.

Climate peer review is a sham, as explained in the Wegman Report to Congress, which you also didn’t read. You should. You would see that a smallish clique of people who control the climate peer review process get to exclusively decide what is published, and what isn’t. There is better peer review on excellent sites like this than there is in Science [to which I subscribed for over twenty years] and Nature. Those journals are routinely scammed by dishonest scientists, as you could have read in the links about Schoen and others. That could never happen in sites like this one. Their fraud would be instantly exposed. You probably don’t believe that, but it’s true.

Anyway, I’m on to a modern thread. I’ll leave this with you to add to your “don’t read” file: click.

But I’m interested to know: in your opinion, are all peer reviewed papers junk… or just the ones that contradict you?

Oh yes, I forgot there’s a word-wide conspiracy to prevent anti-AGW stuff getting published. Funny how some of the most out-spoken sceptical scientists like Spencer, Christy and Pielke have their work paid for by the US Government.

Your “click 10″ made me smile: some of the pre-1940 data is warmer after adjustment: that would tend to reduce the modern anomaly. Tsk, tsk those AGWers are just so inconsiderate.

And this was good for a laugh too: “Wise-up Journal” where one can read about
“EU Takeover”, “Elitist Mindset”, “Global GOV scheme”, “Societal Breakdown”…

“The paper’s available behind the pay wall.”

Of course I already knew it was, I just wanted to make an example of someone who obviously did a quick search and cut ‘n’ paste, and then claims it as “authority.”

As I stated above, the authors of that paper seem to have taken the Joe Biden approach to science: plagiarizing the Pickens submission that I cited [and which was originally published by Newsweek]. Plagiarism is not authority.

There are dozens of sources, including peer reviewed [linked below] that falsify the failed CO2=AGW hypothesis. But my favorite source is planet Earth herself, which is now laughing at the hubris of the AGW believers: as the planet’s temperature declines, CO2 continues to rise.

But there are other sources [some are peer reviewed, for what little that matters; some are not. But lots of the indexes in the sources cited are] :

click1

click2

click3

click4

click5

click6

click7

click8

click9

click10

On the thoroughly discredited peer review process:

clickA

clickB

clickC

clickD

There’s a couple of days’ reading, but you really need it to get up to speed on the subject. When you’ve finished with these, I have lots more for you. Run along now.

I can’t say that I’m impressed by the paper that you linked to which seems to discuss media reports rather than scientific publications.

Funnily enough I seem to remember that a Nobel was awarded with respect to AGW.

Smokey, you say “But the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.” Now that would be worthy of a Nobel prize. Is it pending? Have you got a link to the research behind it.

Interesting that you exclude GCM and peer reviewed papers: what’s left?

Can you provide the paper you linked to? That’s only an abstract.

And it appears that the authors are simply plagiarizing the authors here: click

The long established theory of natural climate variability, in which global temperatures oscillate on a decadal scale above and below a naturally rising trend line going back to the LIA, and to the last great Ice Age before that, has never been falsified.

But the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. So your statement that “…AGW is considered to be a trend superimposed on natural variation…” is not accurate. Remove the “A” from “AGW”, and your statement will be correct.

From what I’ve seen, no one here takes the position that there is no natural global warming, so trying to frame the argument that way doesn’t work. But if you have any solid, real world evidence that AGW exists [please, no GCMs or *ahem* peer reviewed speculation], then by all means, please show it to us.

Empirical proof that CO2=AGW [or even solid, measurable evidence that AGW exists in the real world] would be a first. There’s a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone providing hard evidence that AGW amounts to anything significant, or is even measurable.

That does raise an interesting point though: you do understand that AGW is considered to be a trend superimposed on natural variation, don’t you? In which case, why would you expect the change in temp to be ALWAYS going up. Surely you can see that there may be times when the natural variation down is greater than the AGW component.

Not surprisingly, there’s even a published paper on it… http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml

The whole point of showing the trend lines was to show that the GISS record indicates a rising trend, while all the others show a declining temperature trend over the past 11 years. It’s clear you want to ignore the direction of the trend line; it reveals an inconvenient truth. But ignoring the truth won’t make it go away.

And the woodfortrees site is a cherry-picker’s delight, isn’t it? You can show anything, anything at all. But the fact is that current temps are below 1980 temperatures. People who believe in AGW have a hard time with that fact [which is, of course, easily explained by the never-falsified theory of natural climate variability].

I say ignore the trend line because the use of the trend line starting near the 1998 El Nino could be considered a cherry pick.

Here’s the trend plotted from 1979 which is when the satellite data started.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

The delta between the plots is due to the different base line periods from which the anomaly is measured.

And here’s the plot of trend for GISS and HADCRUT from 1880:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1880/trend

“Interestingly it’s only in the last two or three months that GIS and HADCRUT have a different trend from the satellites.”

Only in the last 2 or 3 months? Sorry, but that’s not true. GISS has been out of step from its peers for a long time: click.

That highlights one of the major complaints about GISS: they “adjust” their data. After they’ve massaged the data sufficiently, the GISS results always seem to show warming — while its peers [including the satellite data] show definite cooling.

Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?”

Ouch Frank you sure know how to jump to conclusions about people you’ve never even met.

Here’s the last couple of years of the 4 main indices:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/plot/gistemp/from:2007/plot/uah/from:2007/plot/rss/from:2007

Interestingly it’s only in the last two or three months that GIS and HADCRUT have a different trend from the satellites. Is that unexpected? Would you really expect 4 different ways of measuring global temperature to give precisely the same result ALL the time especially as the satellite ones are measuring the troposphere rather than the surface.

The delta between the data sets is simply due to the different base years.

You said that the algorithm was poorly documented and lame: poorly documented doesn’t mean that they don’t know what it’s doing. You call it lame, but on what do you base your value judgment: if it’s poorly documented how can you tell?

The blue line in the temperature graph at this link is GISS. Even if you don’t know math you can see how different GISS is from RSS and UK Met. The cooling shown in RSS and Met is without the added cooling of ’08 and ’09. The earth is in a clear cooling trend.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/images/ngeo157-f1.jpg

And yet it seems to match the other main indices… so what’s so bad about it being “poorly doumented”[sic], as it’s “lame algorithm” seems to do the job?

—

Spoken like a true member of the AGW industry. Youmust work for one of the big climate corporations or universities, who are living large on huge amounts taxpayer money while others in our economy suffer.

Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/plot/rss

“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

*I* didn’t say this. Furthermore, are these statements true? Please, if you would, tell me how they are true.

Andrew

It’s clear that you want to blur the legal and the actual together. I don’t. I guess we’re just different that way.

Andrew