Friday Funny – the SciFi terror of inadequate anomalies

With this missive from NYT’s Andrew Revkin who is singing the praises of alarmism by AP’s Seth Borenstein, I’ve come to think that climate alarmists are little more than garden variety hypochondriacs. Almost anything weather or climate related seems to scare them. They worry constantly that the planet is ill, and many try to create all sorts of contrived geo-engineering schemes to make Gaia well again. Case in point: they seem to genuinely fear the results of El Niño warming the planet. Maybe it was comparing warm water in the Pacific to “the blob” SciFi movie that did it. Of course it’s gone now, but the memory remains.

revkin-horror-anomaly

The reality is that this was just a regular ENSO event, and I’ll bet that throughout Earth’s history there have been even bigger ones. As we said earlier this week, the scary warming is nothing more than ENSO doing it’s thing, as this graph shows.

ENSO-vs-Global-temperature

In a couple of months, El Niño and the temperature spike will be gone and then we won’t see crazy pronunciations like this. Instead, we’ll see a shift in dialog that this cooling is just “weather, not climate”.

 

 

94 thoughts on “Friday Funny – the SciFi terror of inadequate anomalies

    • vukcevik
      If you can’t see the increasing trend in temperatures in the graph you provided then there is no hope for you. You can have both an increasing trend and variability they are not incompatible.

      • Hi Luke
        Thanks for your remark. Let’s be honest, the annual global temperature is a rather abstract concept, having no physical existence, it varies by more than 60C at any moment in time across the globe. Anomaly of an abstract quantity borders on meaningless, but hey, why should we bother with such trivialities when we can calculate such abstraction to 1/100 of degree C. As you said, there is no hope for me or the alike thinking people.

      • vukcevic March 18, 2016 at 2:23 pm
        ” Let’s be honest, the annual global temperature is a rather abstract concept, having no physical existence, it varies by more than 60C at any moment in time across the globe. Anomaly of an abstract quantity borders on meaningless, but hey, why should we bother with such trivialities when we can calculate such abstraction to 1/100 of degree C. ”

        That is one of the best things you have ever written. I’ll bet even your good old buddy Dr S would agree with you on this.

      • Luke

        If you can’t see that the increasing trend that is quite obvious in the graph is due to a (±) 1,000-year cycle and a (±) 60 year cycle both reaching their respective maxima at about the same time, then there is not a lot of hope for you. You just need to look at the longer time frame. Look at the ice core records of palaeo-temperature, they are all over WUWT, you don’t have to look very far – https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

        If you look at the ice core records, you won’t be able to escape the fact that the “peaks” of the (±) 1,000-year temperature cycles (i.e. interstadials) have been getting progressively less warm for the previous three cycles, and the present interstadial looks to be continuing that trend..

        Then look further down at the longer (±) 100,000-year cycle from glacial to interglacial and back again. The longest interglacial (i.e. nice and warm, suitable for widespread agriculture, suitable for the development of human civilization) period that you can see in the ice cores lasted for about 16,000 years. The shortest lasted for about 8,000 years. The present interglacial has been going on for 13,000 years. If you can’t see what happens next, well, there’s not much point in explaining it, is there?

        You don’t have to know exactly why these cycles occur – there’s a lot of debate about it (debate is good for science, consensus is not) – but you cannot deny the cyclicity of climate. You just have to look at the data.

        Then look at the really long term and you will see that the earth has been getting cooler for the last 65 million years, with a bit of a reversal from 25 to 15 million years,and it’s culminated in the present ice age (ice age means the whole million years or so of consistent glacial-interglacial cycles). And there’s no end in sight.

        It would be really nice if the people who believe in anthropogenic global warming were right. The coming “apocalypse” of global warming might stave off or postpone the inevitable apocalypse of cold. The trouble is, the “science”, even though it’s “settled” is just not very good. And its promoters, even if they learned a bit about the earth’s history, seem to have either forgotten it or ignored it.

  1. I have been pointing out that Warm ENSO events is what causes short warming spikes,otherwise little to no warming is evident from 1979 onward.

    Where o where does CO2 warming fit in between ENSO derived warming periods which are are always short?

    • Sunsettommy: Where o where does CO2 warming fit in between ENSO derived warming periods which are are always short?

      That is a good question. Right now, too many of the energy flows within the system are too poorly estimated to permit an answer. Nearly every treatise on dynamical systems theory (numerical simulations and measured processes) shows that steady input can produce stepwise or oscillatory output; for example Modern Thermodynamics by Kondepudi and Prigogine, Chapters 18-19.

  2. The CAGW advocates remind me of those preachers who are routinely predicting the Second Coming. There is a market for predictions of doom.

  3. The reality is that this was just a regular ENSO event,

    Maybe. It is too soon to tell. If 1997/1998 is anything to go by, we need another decade to find out.

    • If it took you ten years after 1998 to decide if that year was the beginning of a new trend or not, well…

      • menicholas: If it took you ten years after 1998 to decide if that year was the beginning of a new trend or not, well…

        when after 1998 was it clear that a “step change” increase in temp over the pre-1998 mean temp had occurred? Possibly the record was clear by 2005, but I think 2008 is a better guess at when it had become “clear”.

      • Whatever dude.
        Look, if you want to reserve judgement until 2026 before reaching any conclusions, that is your business.

  4. When they can tell me the temperature exactly 700 miles due west of Easter Island to the hundredth of a degree, I’ll start believing anything they put out. But it seems they can find an average temperature of the entire globe to the hundredth of a degree (and at this point it doesn’t really matter if F or C).

  5. .. I would really like to know, what temperature do they think the Earth should stabilize at ? Should countries like Canada and Russia be forever frozen so that the ELITE can have their perfect weather where they live ?

    • How they managed to convince a large segment of the world that a planet which is lethally cold over much of it’s surface all year around (and over a far large portion seasonally), is somehow a good and desirable thing is a true mystery of human psychology and education.

      • Generational rebellion will likely end up writing books and songs about this period when up was down, black was white and warm was bad.

    • I would really like to know, what temperature do they think the Earth should stabilize at ?

      Oh, at about minus $100 Tril.

    • The prophets of doom never seem to mention the massive population shift in the USA to the “sunbelt”, the millions of “snowbirds” who head south for the Gulf Coast or SoCal warmth, or the typical retirement of Canadians to Vancouver Island for the mild winters. They do, however, write peer-reviewed papers wondering why more people don’t buy into the hoax.

  6. And everything is always “worst ever” and not worst in the period of time in which we have records. Sort of like watching the handwringing over “ice extent.” You look and see the “baseline” is the average from 1980-2011 and wonder why those two dates define what “normal” is. For all I know, that “baseline” might well represent 175% of what the historical extent would be. And I don’t think you can tell the extent of the icepack by looking at the silt on the bottom of the sea since currents CAN change, and reposition the surface silt that might slowly settle to the bottom. Oh well, Nibiru is coming, too, and it’s just a matter of time before Planet X makes its pass as well.

    • I can tell you why. 1979 was a minimal event for cold temperature and Max for ice extent. If 1975 were chosen the ice extent was about 1/2, and therefore it wouldn’t fit the global warming hysteria thesis.

  7. Folks, ever wonder why you can’t seem to see the scariness of manmade climate? I’ll tell you why; it’s because you need the special Scare-O-Goggles ™, and now, for a limited time only, these are available for $14.95 a pair plus shipping and taxes. Yes, you too can be continually frightened by our climate, aka weather. You can be both stylish and proud, wearing your new Scare-O-Goggles ™, now with the new, patented Scare-O-Kob ™, which allows you to turn up (or down) to the desired alarm level. But you must act fast. These are sure to be snatched up in a hurry, and supplies are limited.
    But wait, there’s more. Buy two pair, and a special Climate Diaper will be included free of charge, except for additional shipping.
    To order, go to http://www.climategoggles.com, or just call 1-800-478-8743, that’s 1-800-ISTUPID. Operators are standing by.

  8. The spike is about the same, perhaps a little smaller, than the 1998 Nino spike in UAH:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah

    GISS et al. have gone to great lengths to tamp down the ’98 spike in order to eliminate the “pause”. We’ll be seeing a cooling trend after this one. I’m sure they will do everything they can to keep it. I expect 5 years from now, they will be presenting 5 year and longer running averages that will still have the influence of this spike to keep the meme of continuing warming alive.

  9. I’m going to put up this prognostication again:

    I did this hurriedly, but tried to match the scales roughly to what has been seen in the temperature records. We have been undergoing a long term trend plus a roughly 65 year cyclical pattern since the end of the LIA, plus various transient events like ENSO and volcano eruptions, etc. I added the Nino spikes from ’98 and today. I am expecting temperatures will plunge after this one, since we are on the downside of the cycle now.

    • Don’t stop at the year 1900 though, append it back to the year 900, so we can see context.

      http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

      Look at those graphs, now look at the diminutive CO2 ‘forcing’.

      You still honestly think predicting a future oscillatory weather trend out to 2050, on that meager basis, is feasible or useful for prediction? Or just meme support?

      What if the flattening of the past 20 years is a top, and it stays there, like it has in the past, near a global climate “optimum” and moves little?

      Or if we go back 4K years, and observe that the Holocene T peak occurred then and the trend is a punctuated down slope into the next expected glaciation since?

      In which case we’ll need all the forcing that CO2 doesn’t seem to exhibit, as natural variation accounts for pretty much the lot, so far.

      Except in a natural urban terrain (yes, everything humans get up to is entirely natural), as cities are warmer, we generate and use a lot of electrons, for one thing, and we dramatically change albedo, surface areas, and thermal absorption and emissivity which accounts for most of the thermal emission of cities and their lagged heating and cooling effects on urban thermometer record. So yeah, you could call that anthropogenic, but that urban heat exits earth’s atmosphere constantly.

      But globally, not just urban-global, there’s virtually no change even in the thermometer records.

      So anyone pushing the line that we are in for a chronic global temperature calamity has their work cut out proving that, beyond the urban hysteric’s level.

      Outside of cities, almost no change, other than typical natural variability and known short and long cycles, one of which being El Nino.

      And why is this one so ‘BIG’?

      It’s because our satellite El Nino record of events is so few, and those prior to dedicated Satellite logging, or met records, so very poorly known and understood. So is it really any wonder we’re impressed to log the details of the first few of these, and someone wants to declare the end of human affairs on Earth? lol

      So what have we got to compare now to in detail? 1998? How many comparable samples do we have of globally logged El Nino data? Oh, almost none, really, right? But people apparently think it’s valid to make sweeping predictions?

      Look how long we waited for the current one to occur! Who knew it would occur in 2015-16? Well, no one knew that.

      Why?

      Because we can’t predict the future weather cycles, as we don’t even know what they all are, let alone modeled them.

      So that’s how much we know – more or less approximately nothing! We are in the first stages of getting some good quality weather cycle observations.

      What we really need is detailed context and its perspective – not memes and claims.

      Detailed context and perspective is only available via investing money on research on the Holocene/Quaternary climate record, so that we know it in greater detail, what it really is, so that this internet and science discipline ignorance goes away over time.

      There’s little point spending scarce funds on dysfunctional predictions and dysfunctional climate models, as they have never worked in a useful ways to predict an El Nino/La Nina cycle timing or features, let alone predicted the future state of weather cycles, in general, in, oh I don’t know, let’s say 18 years from now.

      What will that be? And intervening?

      Same, no one knows.

      Well get this, memes, sans detailed context and its perspective, are never going to remove this ignorance and tell us.

      And don’t hold your breath waiting for a ‘climate’ model to work reliably and usefully, as that’s quite a few centuries away apparently.

      However, those models can only really be improved via strict guidance from detailed context, and its perspective, of the record of the planet that was recorded by the planet, sans the memes – that are currently ‘forcing’ the models, and failing spectacularly.

      i.e other words, we already have the necessary database, as the earth recorded all of what we need to know.

      All we have to do is invest in reading it in more detail, and we’ll have all that data we need to remove the ignorance, and who knows, you actually then have a shot at making a global climate model useful. But we are a long, long way from that.

      No need for ‘consensus’ re a meme, no need for dippy beliefs, no need for speculative predictions, no need even for a skeptics arm of science. Just a need for more detailed context, read directly from Earth’s database, so that we’ll all vastly better grasp the perspective and context, and not freak-out so much about ultimately useless time-wasting resource-wasting memes, and their useless predictions, which are never going to be correct or reliable.

  10. I don’t even recall which temperature set this was, but I obviously copied it before it was severely altered.

    If past is prologue, we are on the verge of a plunge such as was seen in the 1940-1950 timeframe.

    • But, with a messiah complex, and the self-righteous narcissism that comes with the conviction one is saving the whole world from itself. It is a severe neurosis.

    • Yeah, but real survivalists do some prepping…these guys just yammer and gnash their teeth.
      Which, it seems to me, is the difference between someone who is seriously expecting something bad to happen and wants to be ready if and when it does, and someone who is just a nervous Nelly bedwetter…or a frickin’ complete fake. Hard to tell which.

      • “Yeah, but real survivalists do some prepping…these guys just yammer and gnash their teeth.”

        Exactly. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds’ trenchant observation, “I’ll consider believing there might really be a crisis when the mobs who never stop screaming there’s a crisis start living their own lives as if there were actually a crisis.”

      • “yammer and gnash their teeth.” – and demand other people’s money be used to prevent it.

  11. “The SKY IS FALLING”.
    The Ice Caps are Melting.
    The sun is rising.

    DOOM.
    Repent.
    Always it is your fault,that all the bad things happen.
    Hypochondriacs?
    Profiteers of Fear mongering.
    Not sick just greedy and gullible.

    Once civil society had a place for failed prophets,conmen and hysterics.
    The STOCKS.

  12. What is all the fuss about? In terms of actual temperatures instead of anomalies, July 2015 was way warmer than February 2016.
    According to NOAA, the average global temperature for July is 15.8 C and for February it is 12.1 C.
    If we apply the GISS anomalies to these numbers, then the global July temperature was 15.8 + 0.73 = 16.5 C. And if we apply the GISS anomalies to these numbers, then the global February temperature was 12.1 + 1.35 = 13.5 C. So February was 3 C colder than July!
    Since we did not fry in July, why should we fry now?
    Furthermore, most of the anomalous warmth in February was in the far north where the air is very cold with a low absolute humidity. It takes little energy to warm this air up.

    • Less frigid is decidedly less scarierer than more hot. That much is for sure.
      Another word for less cold in Winter is…wait for it…MILDER!

      • Which inevitably leads to the quip – I like my global average temperature anomalies like I like my women…
        If not more hot, then at least less frigid.
        And yes, less frigid is decidedly less scarierer than more hot.
        Too hot, and you can be sure that trouble lies ahead…

  13. Although El NIno is dying, unfortunately, the North Atlantic seems to be pretty warm this winter. Sea ice up there has not built out very well. The Eastern Arctic is likely to melt bad this Summer and Fall. The Western Arctic probably will not, most especially the area north of Canada.

    • Give it a little more time in the Atlantic and there will be a story soon enough with cyclical downswing.

    • “The Eastern Arctic likely to melt bad this Summer and Fall.”
      That’s the part north of Russia. The Russians have traditionally preferred longer ice-free conditions for Murmansk, etc. Likely they would rephrase as ‘The Eastern Arctic likely to melt good this Summer…’??

    • hmm, it actually cooled, assisted by the many severe storms that compacted ice and inhibited ice extent growth in the area .

    • “The Eastern Arctic is likely to melt bad…”
      Shouldn’t that be “…likely to melt good…”?
      I see nothing bad about open water as opposed to ice choked ocean surfaces.

  14. When I read quotes from climate scientists these days, I feel like I am reading a sci-fi novel.

  15. If I were to follow the latest lingo from academia, the acute sensitivity to weather variability can be identified as due to climate micro-aggressions.

    Ok where do I go collect my grant money.

  16. “I’ve come to think that climate alarmists are little more than garden variety hypochondriacs. ”

    By Jove, I think you’ve got it! (Although perhaps they are the Garden of Eden variety.)

  17. Isn’t it supposed to be getting colder about now as a result of a quieter solar max, or are skeptics putting the “it’s the Sun stupid” line aside now, since it’s that line that looks stupid?

    • It’s been getting colder since 1998. That’s what your high priest Phil Jones admitted in his don’t go to jail 2010 BBC interview.

      Then in 2005 of course we saw him tell Michael Mann ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. Hey this Aussie told me about a new thing called blogging!”

      In 2010 of course PhiDDLiN Phil admitted to the BBC in his Feb interview that he’d fabricated every single tenth warming since 1995. Later changed by his employer to ’98.

      Then in 2013 your high priesthood’s employer the Met Office, that had suspended Jones and demoted him for not admitting it stopped warming in 1998,

      put out their own press release named ”The Recent Pause in Warming” where they said they’d

      ”written three papers about the 15 year pause in global warming beginning in 1998.”

      Alf Fass
      March 19, 2016 at 2:15 am

      Isn’t it supposed to be getting colder about now as a result of a quieter solar max, or are skeptics putting the “it’s the Sun stupid” line aside now, since it’s that line that looks stupid?

      Don’t you wish before you joined that church,
      someone would have told you in school,
      it’s impossible to immerse 70+ % of a sun-warmed rock in freezing ocean water,
      then whip the exposed remainder, with frigid winds from a self refrigerating gas bath,

      and that be anything but cooling?

      • “It’s been getting colder since 1998. That’s what your high priest Phil Jones admitted in his don’t go to jail 2010 BBC interview.”

        My recollection is that he said that there was no statistically significant trend.

        “Then in 2005 of course we saw him tell Michael Mann ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. Hey this Aussie told me about a new thing called blogging!” ”

        Strangely, even though you claim to be quoting Jones that “quote” doesn’t appear to be on the Internet, is it possible that you’re actually misquoting him?

        “In 2010 of course PhiDDLiN Phil admitted to the BBC in his Feb interview that he’d fabricated every single tenth warming since 1995. Later changed by his employer to ’98.”

        But the BBC article says:

        “Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
        He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.”

        So you’re just making things up.

        “Then in 2013 your high priesthood’s employer the Met Office, that had suspended Jones and demoted him for not admitting it stopped warming in 1998,

        put out their own press release named ”The Recent Pause in Warming” where they said they’d

        ”written three papers about the 15 year pause in global warming beginning in 1998.” ”

        Again, the words ”written three papers about the 15 year pause in global warming beginning in 1998.” Aren’t on the internet, so again you’re obviously misquoting.

        “Don’t you wish before you joined that church,
        someone would have told you in school,
        it’s impossible to immerse 70+ % of a sun-warmed rock in freezing ocean water,
        then whip the exposed remainder, with frigid winds from a self refrigerating gas bath,

        and that be anything but cooling?”

        Firstly, I don’t belong to “that church”, and as for your weird “sun-warmed rock” analogy, it’s too weird for me to get, Did the ocean suddenly appear in 1998 when before there hadn’t been any? were there no winds before 1998? Are you saying there’s been global cooling recently?

    • I think making up one’s mind about what is “stupid” on scanty data is pretty dang imbecilic myself.
      Watching and waiting and noting the developing trends is how people without a functioning crystal ball generally view this.
      What exactly is “stupid”, in your opinion, about noting that the last time to sunspot cycle went quiet we had a very much colder planet?
      Is it stupid to think that that the big hot thing in the sky might, just maybe, have some influence on the temperature and climatic regimes of the Earth?
      I know what I think is stupid: Assuming one can know the future…that is stupid. Placing faith in the failed predictions of people and models that have thus far failed to correctly predict anything…that is stupid.
      The jackass utterances of uninformed commenters…some of those look pretty dang stupid too.

      • “I think making up one’s mind about what is “stupid” on scanty data is pretty dang imbecilic myself.”

        And you then go on to say what you think is stupid, that opinion itself based on scanty data.

  18. People are deceived most thoroughly when they decide to believe what they already want to believe. Having turned away from the true God, they are burdened with guilt and have to invent another god. Who desires sacrifices, and plenty of them. From others, conveniently, even more than from oneself.

    Hence drastic CO2 reduction, industrial society’s elimination, abortion and so-called same sex marriage. It’s all the fruit of a violated conscience by people who deep down know better, but are driven to redefine reality to avoid coming face to face with their evil thoughts and evil deeds. It’s the Soviet Big Lie respawned.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, where are you?!

    • “People are deceived most thoroughly when they decide to believe what they already want to believe.”

      That’s a very true statement, have you seen a mirror recently?

      • The solution (maybe “solution” is an overly ambitious claim, human nature being what it is) is to always try to be both open minded and critical in your thinking, question everything, though in doing so people will inevitably assume (human nature being what it is) that simply in the action of questioning them, that you haven’t considered also questioning those they disagree with (when you actually have and do)

        So be wary of those who leap to conclusions early in the debate, or in life, and are blind to anything other than that which they want to believe.

  19. More irrelevant logic blocking from another self delusional semantics troll.

    Again, the words ”written three papers about the 15 year pause in global warming beginning in 1998.” Aren’t on the internet, so again you’re obviously misquoting.

    The Recent Pause In Warming

    July 2013 – Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s,

    but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.

    This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary

    pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

    The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address

    the recent pause in global warming

    and seek to answer the following questions:

    What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?

    What are the potential drivers of the current pause?

    How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?”

    Which pause?
    The one you’re trying to logic-block through semantics trolling.

    The one you’re failing utterly to refute.

    The one your religion’s high priesthood faked warming to hide for 12 + years.

    • So you were misquoting, simple rule: use quotation marks if you’re quoting.

      Good to see you’ve no problem with my other points.

      There have been several “pauses” in warming over the last few decades, it happens every time there’s a strong El Nino followed by La Nina conditions, then when you get another strong El Nino it ends, the effect is known as The Escalator, and is ignored by people wishing to cherry pick the data by using such periods to spread disinformation.

  20. Are still trying to insist in the face of all you have been taught and had shown to you today that you don’t understand the global temperature was cooling until 2013?

    Yes, because you’re so gobsmacked you’ve believed it all this time you’re simply repeating ”but you don’t believe he was really lying about the recent cooling, do you?

    You just went and saw there are three separate Met Office publications addressing the fact warming stopped in 1998.

    You’re making statements calling into question your being in contact with reality itself.

    The world’s #1 climatologist, then his employer, admitted it had been cooling at least until Jones was suspended then had to confess.

    Then his employer sorted things out for three years, and issued three publications on the fact the world stopped warming.

    You’re like one of those guys in MMA who got knocked out but keeps clawing up at the lights, as if assuming the kung fu position from his back means he’s still got something to add.

    Are you saying there’s been global cooling recently?

    The July 5 2005 email Jones sent regarding concealing it was cooling from the entire scientific world was to another scientist John Christy.

    The emails are numbered, and the one where Jones admitted falsifying records past 1998 is Email # 1120593115

    Your in systematic denial reduced to claim you can’t find out the truth about what happened without more help.

    There you got help. He said it. He was faking the warming – all of it – for more than a decade until he was simply removed from his position and put where he couldn’t do more harm.

    There’s his employer, having issued the three papers,

    with you being given the name of the press release – ”The Recent Pause In Warming”

    but claiming ”you can’t find the papers” so that must mean – something beside the fact you’re incompetent.

    You keep shadowboxing the air, and we’ll all just move into acceptance some government administrators got caught falsifying records for more than a decade.

    • I had a look at the email, and once more you’re making things up, your claim that: “Jones admitted falsifying records past 1998” is a lie. If you don’t admit that, you should quote (rather than misquote, Please) the relevant passage.

      Again: there have been several periods lasting a few years in in the last few decades in which global surface temperatures have not shown a rise in temperatures just start with a strong El Nino followed by La Nina conditions.

      It’s not rocket science, you should be able to understand it.

    • Once again you use quotation marks (”you can’t find the papers”) to tell lies. It’s impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who continually misrepresents other people.

      • “The scientific community would come down on me in no
        uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
        7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

        Is that the passage that’s supposed to prove that “Jones admitted falsifying records past 1998”?

        It looks like he’s acknowledging that he’d expect some flak for saying that the world had cooled in the 7 years after 1998, and that any cooling that had happened wasn’t statistically significant. Which means that in statistical terms there had been no cooling.

        Most people accept that the planet has continued to warm since then.

      • No, I was pointing to “the internet”

        “Strangely, even though you claim to be quoting Jones that “quote” doesn’t appear to be on the Internet, is it possible that you’re actually misquoting him?”

      • OK, I had just pasted in Gershon’s quote between quotation marks, it didn’t come up because a couple of words were omitted.

        Thanks for the clarification.

      • Once again: all you have to do is make time go backward and your leadership not all a bunch of data falsifying criminals, who got caught, and you won’t be the thread clown thinking you’re going to semantics boggle professional scientists.

        Alf Fass
        March 19, 2016 at 1:06 pm

        Once again you use quotation marks (”you can’t find the papers”) to tell lies. It’s impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who continually misrepresents other people.

        You haven’t been serious since you started hemorrhaging stupid in the name of adopting a grammar troll who worships data fabricators.

Comments are closed.