US record lows outpace record highs 127 to 4 this weekend

Jan P Perlwitz
Anyone who understands math and graphs can see your explanation is wanting—it does not legitimize the divergence. GISTemp has diverged from all three of the other data sets in recent years. Before that divergence the four data sets had a relation ship unlike the relationship they had after the divergence of the one set happened. That shows something is going on with GISS data that is not in the others. If two data sets had gone off in divergence that GISTemp has there could be some acceptable explanation. Your explanation, for example, may carry some weight then. But GISTemp is the only one showing warming that the others do not.
James Hansen is an environmental activist. This clearly leaves one with legitimate suspicions about the warming in his data set that has passed through his hands. The data set of a global warming activist, who is called the “grandfather of global warming”, shows more warming in recent years that other well known data sets do. The explanations that try to legitimize why this lone data set shows this warming may ring hollow to many people.

Several cold stations have been dropped from the temperature record:
Joseph D’Aleo, drop cold temperature stations, keep warm ones, voilà, global warming
3 minute video

Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:20 pm
1. Do you care to share the scientific reference from which the picture under the link was taken?
Why would the occurrence of some record lows be “doubly bad for warmists”?
Jan, something did not seem right about me missing something so I double checked and apparently missed this one. I apologize for that.
In answer to the questions you raised as to where I got that diagram from. Dr. David Evans wrote a 26 page pdf on the missing hot spot and this diagram was on page 21. Go to: MissingSignature.pdf Then click on
[PDF]
The Missing Hotspot
Adobe PDF
1 The Missing Hotspot Dr David Evans (david.evans@sciencespeak.com) 21 July 2008 Last major revision 22 Mar 2009, Last minor revision 18 Sept 2010
As for the two record lows comments, we are at the high point of the sine wave so a record low would be rare for that reason. But apart from the high point on the sine wave, it is generally accepted that we have warmed up about 0.7 degrees C since about 1750. The combination of both factors should make record lows very rare indeed. The fact that there were so many recently suggests that the CO2 is not causing catastrophic warming. I realize this is just weather, but it still does not look good for warmists.

Anthony Watts wrote in reply to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/us-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-127-to-4-this-weekend/#comment-1062555

REPLY: The lack of weather stations in the Arctic where GISS interpolates up data where there isn’t any isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. – Anthony

Yes, and nowhere did I say it wasn’t. But the statements in sentence 2 and 3 in your reply were mere statements of opinion.
Anthony Watts wrote in reply to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/us-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-127-to-4-this-weekend/#comment-1062562

REPLY: Oh, please. Prove then that Dr. Hansen did these things in his “free time” from GISS, lets see the evidence. Prove that he was totally detached from NASA. Show us the requests for leaves of absence, and the approval of them, or your concept is one of opinion and not of fact.

I’m not the one with the burden of proof with respect to your accusations against Jim Hansen. You make accusations against a person, you have the burden of proof.

And while you are at it, let’s see where you are then in the tree structure so we know exactly who we are dealing with then.

A look in the GISS directory could already have answered all your questions with respect to my primary affiliation. But what I observe here, not just with respect to this factoid, there seems to be a pattern that you prefer to make assertions before doing proper research.

If you aren’t a Federal employee, why then are your listed on a federal website:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html
???

Because I work at GISS. There aren’t only federal employees working at GISS.

I think you are full it it, because your actions say otherwise. When you first started commenting on this blog, you were using your at work network infrastructure.

That’s your assertion.

Now that has disappeared, replaced with a local ISP, and you have stopped commenting during GISS working hours.

What are supposed to be “GISS working hours”? I don’t have regular working hours. I’m not paid for a 9 to 5 job. I also often work from home, since I have a nice, large home office with a great view.

What’s next or your plan, an arrest record like Jim Hansen? Seems that based on your emotional issues you’ve been displaying you are headed down the path of activism just like him.

You worry too much about me. You should rather worry about your own issues, of which you seem to be projecting a lot on others. Going down the path of Jim Hansen would not be such a bad one. He is an internationally well respected scientists and what he says matters. There are much worse paths to go down. For instance becoming part of an angry fringe group, who has lost the scientific argument and therefore doesn’t have much more left than raging in opinion blogs like this one here, and to delve into absurd fantasies about a worldwide, omnipotent conspiracy that was suppressing “The Truth”.
REPLY: Yeah I’m sure GISS will respond timely to the FOIA requests just like they have in the past /sarc. They will cite “employee privacy” and tell me to pound sand, thus your “burden of proof” claim is unobtainium.
” Going down the path of Jim Hansen would not be such a bad one.”
I look forward to seeing you arrested with Jim soon. You work at GISS, but aren’t a federal employee? Check. That makes you expendable when the reorganization comes.
BTW when will you be pushing your partners at RC to allow for skeptics such as myself to post there without their comments being immediately deleted? Since you are so concerned over the issue here (from your smear blog posting) I’d like to see that email where you take your concerns for “free speech” to the very people in your office who suppress it. Or, will I have to FOIA that one too?
Your attitude towards people here suggests you embrace the “instant deletion” of RC comments by skeptics such as myself. I look forward to your position on the matter.
– Anthony

E.M.Smith wrote at August 21, 2012 at 9:18 pm:

So you get a “bait and switch” process. “Anyone” can go look – as long as they say it’s all just fine. Say it isn’t, well, you are not anointed enough then… So what’s the point in saying “Go look” if the intent is to dismiss the results of the looking?

I haven’t dismissed anything. If you think you have found something substantial then publishing it in a peer reviewed climate journal would be the next logical step. If you don’t have enough experience get someone on board who does. What about McIntyre? Why don’t you try to get him onboard? He should be very eager to publish something that proves all those ugly analyses from GISS about global warming as bogus. There are enough specialist journals in the field where this could get published. And if nothing helps, there is still Energy & Environment.

There clearly was NO intent that folks could go “look for themselves”, only that “Peers and Pals” could really matter…

And here comes the conspiracy fantasy again. Another meme and talking point in the fake skeptic universe. All the climate journals are under the control of a sinister global, omnipotent conspiracy, so that “The Truth” can’t get published. Excuses, excuses.

It is such pointless GAME PLAYING that is one of the hallmarks of deception, IMHO, and that kind of thing was one of the first things to convince me that one side was playing games (the warmers) while the other side was looking for real ground level truth.

The GAME is that I request you and your friends have to uphold the same scientific standards as working scientists are mandated to fulfill to get published with the results of their research, especially if you want to question the validity of those results. To uphold a high level of scientific standards is the function of the peer review process. It doesn’t always work out, reviewers are not infallible, editors make mistakes too, but the standards are in place. And once you do I will accept you as true skeptics. You seem to think that is such an unfair game toward you, currently. But it’s the other way around. You don’t want fairness, because you want a privileged treatment compared to working scientists. You want the elaborations in your opinion blog be seen on equal footing, but you don’t want to uphold the same scientific standards. Or you want to lower the standards altogether. The ones who don’t like a rigorous peer review process are the ones who want to lower the standards.

But there is no ‘gatekeeper’ on my postings.

And nothing that prevents you from asserting whatever you want and its opposite in your opinion blog. And it ensures that nothing what you produce there is put under the same scientific scrutiny by the scientific community as the scrutiny which is put on the results from research published by working scientists. You don’t have any mandated standards of a scientific discussion, standards like everything has to be backed up with references and proof of sources. You don’t have to follow rules like stating clearly the assumptions, that the conclusions are logical and sufficiently backed up with the evidence provided, that the methodology is sufficiently described to be able to scientifically reproduce the results, and to refrain from attacking other scientists, instead of providing scientific counter-arguments, if you don’t agree with the results from the research provided by the other scientists.
I’m not going to take someones elaborations as equally seriously as a real scientific publication, whatever this someone asserts how important it is scientifically what he has done, if this someone refutes to submit to the same standards to which working scientists are required to submit.
You and Mr. Courtney are allowed to complain about this to the Internet.

REPLY: “You and Mr. Courtney are allowed to complain about this to the Internet.”
Allowed?
Wow, just wow, that has to be the most arrogant condescending comment I’ve ever seen. This while whining in blog posts at your new blog that a couple of your comments got deleted here out of the now over 150 you’ve made.
Mr. Perlwitz, I think I shall make an example of your comment. Until that time, I suggest for your own good that you limit your postings here, you aren’t making any friends, and you aren’t convincing anyone with your attitude.
– Anthony

Anthony Watts wrote in reply to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/us-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-127-to-4-this-weekend/#comment-1062777

REPLY: Yeah I’m sure GISS will respond timely to the FOIA requests just like they have in the past /sarc. They will cite “employee privacy” and tell me to pound sand, thus your “burden of proof” claim is unobtainium.

Not my problem.

You work at GISS, but aren’t a federal employee? Check. That makes you expendable when the reorganization comes.

If you say so. I’m certain you look forward to it.

BTW when will you be pushing your partners at RC to allow for skeptics such as myself to post there without their comments being immediately deleted?

I don’t have anything to do with maintaining the RealClimate blog. Btw: I have seen that true skeptics can place their comments at RC.

I’d like to see that email where you take your concerns for “free speech” to the very people in your office who suppress it. Or, will I have to FOIA that one too?

What does my office have to do with the RealClimate blog? RC is a private undertaking hosted by scientists from various countries:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/
No one is entitled to “Free Speech” on private blogs. Here on yours, or on RC. Censorship is up to the discretion of the blog hosts.
Why don’t you document the comments by you that allegedly get deleted from RC, like I document comments by me that get deleted here. Then everyone can judge for him/herself about the content.
REPLY: Oh, I have, and you’ll see them in the upcoming blog post about you and RC. In the meantime, for your own good, I suggest you limit your comments here.
“No one is entitled to “Free Speech” on private blogs. Censorship is up to the discretion of the blog hosts.” yet you complain about two missing and some snipped comments here out of the over 150 you’ve made. Your hypocrisy is boundless.
– Anthony

Anthony Watts wrote in reply to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/us-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-127-to-4-this-weekend/#comment-1062782

REPLY: “You and Mr. Courtney are allowed to complain about this to the Internet.”
Allowed?
Wow, just wow, that has to be the most arrogant condescending comment I’ve ever seen.

Really! After you and your friends write comment after comment with statements in which I’m personally attacked and my person is made a topic here, and not the first time, it riles you up when I get a bit snarky. Now, that I call hypocrisy.

Jan P Perlwitz blah, blah, blah, in a condescending tone.