Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we’re causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a “news alert” from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. …

Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result — they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:

Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?

Comments

  1. #1 Kristjan Wager
    November 28, 2009

    Did someone really just link to evidence in the NZCSC website in the comment to a post explaining how the NZCSC is lying? You couldn’t make these things up, even if you tried.

  2. #2 Dave
    November 28, 2009

    Indeed Kristjan – it’s like I’ve skipped merrily through the looking glass.

    @575 SteveS, how about you *read the blog post you’re commenting on* and *follow the link provided* for the explanation you so desperately seek.

  3. #3 Donald Oats
    November 28, 2009

    THIS is why I sometimes feel like running away into the wilderness and living off nuts and berries.

    Can’t hear you…

    …I’m running….

    …still running…

  4. #4 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    Tom, (Tom with questions from the pink form from last night),

    Its now morning is Oz, and I realise that you made a few points that I wish to address.

    >*As to the science itself for me at this point, the data is corrupt. It has led a very troubled life and now the data for any real purpose is worthless. It is numbers and code that has been “tricked”.*
    To have a proper discussion on this claim you make, we need to talk specifics. Rather than making broad sweeping claims we should go to the specifics and test evidence for each claim of wrong doing.
    The one specific you mention is the word “trick”.

    On that word “trick” I submit [this context]( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) :
    > *No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”*

    >*The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.*

    >*As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).*

    >*Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.*

    From a lay persons perspective I understand that the proxies for temperature (coral growth rings, ice cores, tree growth rings, sediments etc.. have excellent correlation with the thermometer record up to about 1960. From that time there is a divergence (the decline). I have read speculation that this divergence is due to massive change in the biosphere (CO2 rise, aerosols causing global dimming etc) that are in addition to temperature, resulting a messy response from the previously temperature correlated proxies.

    People from all over the place have brought similar claims about the alleged fraud shown the CRU emails, they come full of surety and certain of the guilt that has been uncovered.
    Having so many alleged clues to the alleged crimes, yet they haven’t taken the manifold steps required of going past speculation of what the authors mean. They’ve pronounced fraud and guilt; and done so without assessing how well the documented evidence fits with the crimes they speculate that the emails show.

    If there really were fraud, their failure to produce corroborating evidence now in light of the emails (as thier guide) would be the equivalent of being awarded a free kick right in front of the goals, and then walking away.

    An odd thing happens when one asks for the specifics. Take a look at the response from these commentators after each of the question asked as follows:
    To Robert [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2105662)
    To William Wallace [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#comment-2103259).
    To acadder [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2108539).

    Who is pushing the idea of climate fraud? It is front groups [like these]( http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ ) who are really misrepresenting the facts and tricking people.

  5. #5 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    578 Wrong at large,

    Have you ever heard the phrase ‘intellectual dishonesty’.
    Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 3:58 PM

    i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,

  6. #6 MarkG
    November 28, 2009

    >i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,

    “Intellectual dishonesty’ includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    November 28, 2009

    wrong at large:

    i always find it interesting that psychotic people

    I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.

  8. #8 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    586
    i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,

    “Intellectual dishonesty’ includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.

    Posted by: MarkG | November 28, 2009 8:39 PM

    587
    wrong at large:

    i always find it interesting that psychotic people
    I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.

    Posted by: Chris O’Neill | November 28, 2009 8:48 PM

    you must be referring to janet akerman et al then,,,

    talk about intellectual dishonesty,,,

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    >*i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,*

    The unfortunate part of your latest assertion is that I didn’t just call you intellectually dishonset, but I also [demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2109484). And your latest comment worked to reinforce the evidence of your practice of intellectual dishonesty.

    **Houston, we have a shining example of denial here!**

  10. #10 ajax
    November 28, 2009

    Wrong At Large,

    Did you just employ the “*I know you are, but what am I?*” playground defence?

  11. #11 AmandaS
    November 28, 2009

    Wrong at large, if nothing else, please stop abusing the comma. It’s a hard-working, very pleasant member of the punctuation community and it doesn’t deserve what you are doing to it.

    A

  12. #12 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 9:23 PM

    don’t be afraid,,, stand by the behaviour you have displayed in all your previous posts,,, not just to me,,,

    Posted by: ajax | November 28, 2009 9:26 PM

    calling them as i see them,,,

    Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 9:28 PM

    interesting how it takes so little to annoy you,,,

  13. #13 Tom
    November 28, 2009

    Good morning Janet Akerman, Today I have been thinking about what has happend and what will probably be the outcome. I can’t refute any scientist on “the science” I do not have the training. However, let’s say that the FOIA files and emails had been disseminated just like what has taken place. The difference being the emails were tight and on point, people focused on their jobs-that kinda thing. The data sets were intact and backed up. There were no emails with the personal attacks of MM and PJ. When the program codes; though using different types of data sources,languages and codes showed the frustration and victory of the programer, instead of what we are seeing now. Since the people of the world were bank-rolling the research, all solid data was accesable, online 24/7. If the costs to the world were not as expensive and penalties going hand in glove with more control from a centralized source… You all would be sitting in the sunshine this morning enjoying what was ahead of you. Unfortunatly for the Global Warming folks, that is not going to be. Like I said last night. At the best; you all need to start from scratch. And you will not have the money you have had, for good reason. If this had been a new Star-Wars program and they had a mountain of stuff dumped that made them look like they were going to have huge cost overruns and lots of graft & payoffs, etc. you would hope that we would stop their funding and close the project. I understand this is just a loose comparison of two compleatly different situations but it works for me. People of the world were trusting a small group of experts. This looks like a large failure for the small group. Rock on…

  14. #14 mediatart
    November 28, 2009

    The NZCSC refutes the story from NIWA that they have explained the adjustments.

    The Coalition says Dr Wratt’s release mentioned specifically that NIWA climate scientists had previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections are made. Mr Dunleavy comments: “We disagree. We have no record of receiving an explanation. NIWA has in fact refused numerous requests over the years to disclose the corrections. The most recent one was a written request to Dr James Renwick – over a month ago – still unanswered. So we would be grateful to hear what Dr Wratt is referring to, when the information was sent and to whom.

  15. #15 AmandaS
    November 28, 2009

    Oh, wrong at large. Not annoyed. Just kind of embarrassed for you.

    But if you like to think of yourself as some kind of e.e.cummings rebel against the strictures of society and the bounds of conventional language, you go right ahead and think of yourself that way. *pats*

    A

  16. #16 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    Tom,

    There are strong forces at play including the direct interest of the [most profitable corporations](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-exxon.4.9679416.html) in history, and [PR campaigns](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank) could make even the best of us look like terrible sinners. Let he who is willing to handover all their private correspondence cast the first stone.

    Essentially like I said, you’ve got to get to the specifics to see what is spin and what is real. And we’ve seen what [comes to light](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2109672) when you get into the details.

    Tom have you ever come across the phrase “doubt is our product”?

  17. #17 MarkusR
    November 28, 2009

    The NZCSC refutes the story from NIWA that they have explained the adjustments.

    Shorter NZCSC: Ok, so we lied when we said there was no reason for adjustments, but we dare you to prove we heard you two years ago!

  18. #18 Tom
    November 28, 2009

    I can’t wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE’s love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?… I am all ringing ears:o)

  19. #19 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 10:28 PM

    the embarrassment is all yours,,,

  20. #20 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    598 I can’t wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE’s love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?… I am all ringing ears:o)

    Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 10:39 PM

    exactly,,, you never see real scientists (newton, einstein, etc) worry about “most profitable corporations”,,,

    real scientists worry about the science,,, and let their findings stand up to open scrutiny,,,

    but not the proselytizers of AGWism,,,

  21. #21 Tom
    November 28, 2009

    Janet, Strong forces at work, “cast the first stone.”… You are going POE? Doubt Is Our Product… Wow, all this biblical, mysterious, threatining talk is getting me all wound up. Please tell me what you know and when you first knew it.

  22. #22 AmandaS
    November 28, 2009

    Oh, wrong at large, I know it is. I doubt that you would even know what shame is. But some of us are willing to feel it for you.

    It’s okay, the English language is hard. You do it on purpose. We know ;)

    A

    PS If you want the real conspiracy theory (the one that explains the melting ice and the heatwaves and the water drying up and the warming nights – you know; all that pesky physical data) you need to think climate scientists and hairdryers. They go out at night, you know, with hairdryers (when NO-ONE is looking) and they run them all night and heat up the world. They need the money from the ETS to pay for the electricity. You know it’s true; don’t follow the money – follow the hairdryers.

  23. #23 wrong at large
    November 28, 2009

    Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 11:08 PM

    maybe they will give us a peek at their AGMist manifesto,,,

    their posts give us clues to it,,,

  24. #24 MarkG
    November 29, 2009

    >maybe they will give us a peek at their AGMist manifesto,,,
    >their posts give us clues to it,,,

    There’s a name for the manifesto in this case. It’s called “Physics of Radiative Transfer”. Feel free to look it up.

    ps: commas; they don’t mean what you think they mean.

  25. #25 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Amanda S, Alright kids, it looks like all the little monkeys are back into the jungle for the night. I just got off the web after seeing what the world holds for the morrow… Drudge Report and Climate Depot.com are reporting a worldwide raising of temperature as monitors around the globe blaze late into the night. Citizens of the world at last unite to roll up the feared New World Order. The faith of unbelievers everywhere is being tested as we type. As disbelief turns toward anger and the thousand points of lite; face the wrath of the 5,957,423,777. Free loving people of the world say; let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us(Psalms 2:3) For God & Truth are with us. Sweet dreams all

  26. #26 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Tom,

    The conspiracy is not about individuals but a corrupt system of self-serving, an open secret, its a the self-licking-icecream I pointed you to earlier (re Nanny) [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#comment-2096163).

    Would be hard to miss if not for all the bread and circus distractions.

  27. #27 dhogaza
    November 29, 2009

    Like I said last night. At the best; you all need to start from scratch.

    Physicists didn’t have e-mail 150 years ago, and my guess is that you’re so clueless you don’t even understand why that’s relevant.

  28. #28 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Yo Dhog, Waz up; Hey man… like I said “after all that cake; got milk?”…;) Don’t worry, everything I’m hearing is nobody in the USA wants to waste the feathers and we have decided we can’t do the ride the rail trip because that would just be putting our problems onto someone else. Anyway your in OZ or whateva… No sweat i am sure.
    By the way Dr. dhogaza: the Earth is only 25 Heavenly miles in circumference, roughly. If you are 72″ tall, you are really only .0072 Heavenly inches tall. Ratchet down the pride a bit. Where is the 97% of the mass of Mighty Univ? According to the Word it has been hidden from man by God. Presto you aren’t going to find the God partical. I will bet you the cost of the LHC. No tricks. If you doubt my obsevations check II Peter, 1Day in Heaven=1000 years on Earth. You do the math Bright Boy.

  29. #29 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    POE Janet, Now you will plumb the depths. As you explain to people what you feel and see… their eyes will just glaze over as they smile softly at you. Sheep and serpents, we both like the warm lazy days of summer in our quiet green field. A bit of drama but after all these years of the fake blank smile just to be nice, now it’s your turn. Rock on…

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009
    wrong at large:

    i always find it interesting that psychotic people

    I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.
    Posted by: Chris O’Neill | November 28, 2009 8:48 PM

    you must be referring to janet akerman et al then,,,

    No, just the person who said “psychotic people”.

  31. #31 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Tom, “Doubt is our product” is PR strategy with a successful history. [Browse here](http://tinyurl.com/yaco6jk).

    When people “do not have the training” to understand the science they are vulnerable to manipulation via PR campaigns. If a network of front groups can manufacture a controversy, then it gets reported in a “balanced” way. You have one side says this, one says that then how is the public to choose who is right?

    When regulation threatens the profits of powerful, well resourced groups it is in their shareholder interest to protect their profits. Selling doubt is an “economically rational” way of achieving this goal. And “Pursuit of rational self interest maximizes the good for all”. Hence selling doubt (in a manner that disproportionately serves the interest of the most well-resourced groups) is part of “maximising good for all.

    What I describe above is a perverse self justification logic that also. This should also be view along the [self-licking-icecream]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#comment-2096163) that I described earlier. And also the small (tip of the iceberg) fraction of front group spending that we have found by an accidental slipup on behalf of [just one corporation]( http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets) Exxon).

    The fact that you believe all the Data should be thrown out, regardless of being able to judge the science. The fact that people who scream guilt about CRU can’t produce corroborating evidence, is all consistent with a PR coup. A lot of groundwork was done to get these results even before the emails.

    Its also a template that can be broadened to any threat to profits of those with most resources.

  32. #32 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009

    Tom:

    At the best; you all need to start from scratch.

    Yes, we need to go back before Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. Sure, if you say so Tom.

  33. #33 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Tom @609,

    You can only lead a horse to water.

  34. #34 Michael
    November 29, 2009

    MarkG:

    ps: commas; they don’t mean what you think they mean.

    Yeah, what is with the 3 commas (“,,,”) at end of every sentence?
    Does this person think it signifies something?

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    November 29, 2009

    I’ve been wondering how one such as Tom, who professes to hold the Christian God in such high esteem, can simultaneously be so intolerant, rude, unaccepting and generally nasty to those who accept the large and extensively-evidenced science of climatology, when his Lord would councel him to turn the other cheek, at the very least.

    Then, having a Fundamentalist upbringing myself, I remembered the extreme [cognitive dissonance](http://tiny.cc/c83hQ) that one must endure if one is to accept the Word of the Lord in its literal form.

    Of course Tom, if you believe that I am somehow in error when I speak of the manifold contradictions (and hypocrisy) inherent in a literalist interpretation of Christian mythology, you will have a glib answer for each and every one of the points listed in the links on the above site.

    Go for it buster – and “rock on” (or should that be “stone the bloody heathens”?).

  36. #36 James Smith
    November 29, 2009

    The sad thing about this, Tim, is that you claim to be a mathematician.

    If you move a temperature site, the effect is to add or subtract a constant amount from the temperature record, creating a discontinuity at that point in the graph. The size of the discontinuity is the difference in temperature due to the movement divided by the number of stations in the average. The temperature curve may have a different shape in the two locations, but as you are looking for an average to find a trend this doesn’t matter.

    If there are multiple movements the result is to add a step function to the basic curve, with the size of the steps being the temperature difference divided by the number of stations and the direction on whether the new site is hotter or colder than the old. Unless you have some basis for claiming otherwise, the step function would as likely go down as up.

    Examination of the two graphs shows that the difference is not the addition of such a step function, but rather a straight line, starting in about 1920 and rising at a slope of about 20 degrees. A straight line is not a step function.

    The explanation offered by the NIWS may sound good to the layman, but to a mathematician it is nonsense. Either the NIWS, or the person they went to for this explanation, is lying. That someone like you who claims to be a mathematician would help cover this up is a disgrace.

  37. #37 zoot
    November 29, 2009

    James Smith @616: How does that exculpate the NZCSC who

    made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site.

  38. #38 Paul UK
    November 29, 2009

    Surely the whole point of science is to apply maths appropriately with knowledge of the REAL world??

    I don’t see how a slope would represent a real world interpretation of what has happened. Maybe James Smith can elaborate.

  39. #39 Marco
    November 29, 2009

    @James Smith,
    I’m not sure which graphs you are looking at, but I can see a clear step function, NOT a sloping line, being applied.

    The green line stays exactly where it is, and Thorndon is moved down by 0.79 degrees (based on the airport data being moved down with that amount in order to overlap with Kelburn).

  40. #40 Paul UK
    November 29, 2009

    Marco, I got the impression that James Smith was implying that a step function wasn’t appropriate, but a slope was.
    I might be wrong though.

    But why apply a slope??

    When the station was moved did the temperature decide magically decide to gradually increase to ease the station in after a long drive from the old location?? :-)

  41. #41 Paul UK
    November 29, 2009

    James Smith said:
    >Examination of the two graphs shows that the difference is not the addition of such a step function, but rather a straight line, starting in about 1920 and rising at a slope of about 20 degrees. A straight line is not a step function.

    Just to clarify.
    I am assuming James means a straight line slope from about 1920 to the present year.
    Which seems like a bizarre analysis of a real world situation of moving stations.

  42. #42 Paul UK
    November 29, 2009

    I think James needs to clarify whether the slope thing is an accusation of what has been done to the graphs (which as Marco says, it clearly hasn’t), or a suggestion by James of what should have been done, which is just ridiculous.

  43. #43 wrong at large
    November 29, 2009

    you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way to solve your creationist AGW apocalypse,,, to get your credibility back,,, as if,,, you had any to begin with,,, see you at the next ice age,,,

  44. #44 Josh
    November 29, 2009

    creationist AGW apocalypse

    Creationist AGW apocalypse? What?

    The people who are concerned with creationism are mostly geologists, biologists, paleontologists, and physicists. Few of them overlap with climate scientists in their areas of expertise and interest. These are two very different fronts in the fight against anti-thought. Lumping them together as you did there makes little sense, especially if you did so to imply that the scientific community has somehow lost credibility in the battle against creationism (it hasn’t), or that creationists have any credibility at all (they don’t).

  45. #45 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Good morning Janet, I just hate it when people call me clueless:o) Yikes. The Stakeholders have been moving their businesses and wealth out of the US for the last 25 years. Moving almost en masse to the new 1.3 billion consumer mecca in China, Along with their Chinesse (1 for each business) partners they have the cash now to buy our Treasuries. They want higher rates before they really get active on the buy side. Congress helped this happen every step of the way, you know it too. Hey, what were those secret conversations with Mao & Kissinger all about do you think? Only the two of them and the one Chinesse interperter. No one here at the time liked it but we all wanted out of Nam… Maybe FOIA will now fill us in on that but I am not going to holding my breath. Moving right along here. Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form. Useable. If you all say you need it for your foundation use it. Then you have to build. Build well or a shambles it is all up to you folks. Janet, you are mixing up your metaphorse “You are the horse; I am already in the Water.”Get it? Bernie J, there is just the One God. Not him and a bunch of others that you pan-theists see in urworld. I am always reassured when someone so far away can detect those of us who are unable to reason. See PR hand-out once more Bernie,#80. You guys already pronounced the “Rational Man” a myth. So why are you grading me on such a steep curve. I did not know you were gay Bernard. I appologize. As to the Word it really says we are to be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. As to the turn the cheek observation it really works like this… I lie, cheat and steal from a bunch of sheep people, trusting folks. Then I realize that I have sinned. I repent(turn away from) my sin. Now I am supposed to go back to the people I have cheated and appologize to them face to face… then the Christian forgives you like
    God will forgive us when we accept his Son into our lives. Some people have too much Pride. Become a disiple and read again one more Book. This time you all need what it will provide. I am probably older that you Bernard. When I was young we used to go to things called Rock Concerts. It was a time to party! We drove fast cars and chased faster women. It was a wonderful time to be alive… You need to check out Humble Pie, man. It has a great energy- I Don’t Need No Doctor…m mm bu boba boba. Made loud to be played loud. You people have a nice day I am going to watch some football. Eat some popcorn and kick it. Back to the Beach!

  46. #46 dhogaza
    November 29, 2009

    Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form. Useable. If you all say you need it for your foundation use it. Then you have to build.

    Don’t need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming … after that, the only question is “how much?”.

    That’s how unphysical the denialist argument is.

  47. #47 Dappledwater
    November 29, 2009

    Bah, Tom #625 is totally clueless.

  48. #48 dhogaza
    November 29, 2009

    I think when Tom says “you gotta start from scratch”, he means Genesis …

  49. #49 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Bernard J, I apologize for not staying on the gas thing…
    In your post #615, you say that the Bible is literal and of course it is a book. Here is the wonderful thing about it though, if you believe in the Messiah and become a true disciple(one who studies and prays daily asking for understanding) the current is compleated. When the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning and the truth of the Word of God to you. That is the process that helps us grow in our faith. It does not always happen at once, God tests our faithfulness and patience. He is with us all, always. That is too big for me to truly to get my mind around but I know it to be true & I know he loves us all. He is in real control. We just never really know what is coming next. Not to the day anyway:) Love, Tom

  50. #50 dhogaza
    November 29, 2009

    I was right …

  51. #51 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Dr dhogaza, Thank you for reading my post #488. I am sure that if you had been Moses, six thousand(6 days according to II Peter)years ago you too would have been able to repeat his success. Time, Space, Matter, and in their proper order to boot. All in the first verse. I wonder where all his work books and stuff are—maybe yet to be dis-covered in Qumran. Probably find an old DEC Rainbow too!
    Remember people: Faith+nothing. Are you in?

  52. #52 Dave
    November 29, 2009

    I nominate Tom for “Turing Test Failure of the Week”.

    I’m quite serious – at this point your posts are indistinguishable from the random gibberish generated by spambots.

  53. #53 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Tom,

    It seems your defences have gone up. That also happens when one is challenged to peruse the specifics to discern reality from spin.

    And I note your defences went up before people challenged you on fundamentalism.

  54. #54 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Ref. post #631. People of the World, I have to apologize to everyone. My model is correct; it is the time line that I used that was wrong. Please read your Bibles to get the accurate information. I am not a scientist.( Tom

  55. #55 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Hi Janet:o) You are just like Hitler!,,,

  56. #56 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Dave, TTFW~:)#632! I hardly know you folks. What is the gift package anyway if I had been turned to a, you know; one of you guys. A trip to Venice! As I mentioned earlier in my posts I am envious of the way you all traveled and got to see the whole world over lo’ these many years. Wow, almost makes me want to join you but as an old stockbroker I think you and yours just topped out. If you can figur out what I mean. What VPR’s… Oh,Except for Janet Akerman, who may be leaning to the POE’s but still in the closet:)

  57. #57 A lurker
    November 29, 2009

    I wonder what he thinks a Poe is.

  58. #58 Krubozumo Nyankoye
    November 29, 2009

    Janet, It is just this simple. People don’t like getting played for fools. No matter how Smart they/you all are. Get it?

    Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 8:27 PM

    To those of you familiar with talk.origins this is a well qualified “Chez Watt”. It almost characterizes this entire thread. Brilliant.

    This example of right wing USA USA frothing bewilderment is coming from people who are full of fear. Some if it is justified because 300,000 or more of them per month are being foreclosed, many of them will become homeless. Another 400,000 or so will lose their jobs, and then their homes. Another half million per year will be bankrupted by medical expenses they thought they were insured against. Millions have lost their life savings in one year.

    They know they have been conned. But they cannot admit it to themselves because they fell for it. They are proud to standup and scream accusations and slander at climate scientists because they are told that will “prevent” them from being conned out of “their money”!

    They have been conned already out of their dignity, their courage, their native intelligence, their confidence in themselves. They know it, but they cannot admit it.

    The few who showed up here to act out their fear and irrationality are not necessarily representative of even the groups they self-identify with. But they are representative of the extent to which PR and message control, and the corruption of money can be manipulative of a significant fraction of a population.

    That I think, is a more intractable problem by far than AGW and a much greater threat. If anything good at all can come from this type of thing (this nontroversy over AGW) it is perhaps that the otherwise apathetic and inattentive but large majority still capable of a moment’s reason will recognize their peril. But I am not optimistic.

    Cheers,

  59. #59 dhogaza
    November 29, 2009

    I wonder what he thinks a Poe is.

    A raven’ maniac, perhaps?

  60. #60 a lurker
    November 29, 2009

    *rimshot!*

  61. #61 luminous beauty
    November 29, 2009

    >you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way …

    Is cheapism some new wingnut ideology?

  62. #62 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    Hello Mr. Krubozumo Nyankoye, I feel that Chez Watt was probably right. It is creation after all… I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the “rational man” dead. They are wrong. I have lived a very interesting life, lots of it spent doing what my superiors told me they wanted done. Now at this stage of my life I can see how many people have at times controlled my knowingness. No more. The word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not. They make a joke I think Ref:FOAI files;Job 37:14-24; it reflects on their problems with code. Funny! I know what I believe and who I trust. As to this thread and my give and take with all these nice people who have taken part, thank you again. Those that read this will be able to see for themselves if I was open, honest, truthful as best as I could be. Let the people judge for themselves of what has been written.
    PS Dr. Dhogaza, You have not been following along with us…
    I have it on good authority that Janet Akerman, is now a full-on-POE, amazing since…:)

  63. #63 MarkG
    November 29, 2009

    >you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way to solve your creationist AGW apocalypse,,,

    So it seems you’re just a troll after all. Hardly surprising. If, on the other hand, you are seriously equating creationism with AGM science… Well frankly all I can take from that is that your theology skills are as weak as your science and logic.

  64. #64 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    >*”I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the “rational man” dead. They are wrong.”*

    Interesting to contrast this againt the statement (in the same paragraph) that the “*word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not*”.

    There is no God postion from “AGW people” as we a diverse bunch. There is room for all sorts.

    But what do you mean when you say that one group:

    >*”has already declared the “rational man” dead. They are wrong.”*

    Which rational man are your refering to, and what declarations have been made, and why are they wrong? Following 500 posts I need a recap.

  65. #65 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    >*Hi Janet:o) You are just like Hitler!,,,*

    >Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 3:15 PM

    Tom, not enough fire, nor conviction. You need to have your shutters open with passion, not closed in defense. Only when I can virtually see the spittle, will it sound convincing.

    Then we’ll tell you the ‘Lore’.

  66. #66 Tom
    November 29, 2009

    #644 Hello & Goodnight Janet, Once more, to all of those who have arrived late to this thread-it is the first thing I posted here; Post #80. One of PJ’s FOIA files, The Rules Of The Game. Readers please feel free to decide for yourself. This PR piece states clearly for all to see, The Rational Man is a myth,…the people,…stakeholders. I don’t care about font size it’s their words throughout this document for me. So let’s not be fooled again by the “what the meaning of “Is” is…defence. The writer of this piece does not see himself as one of the people. I have already been diagnosed here as clueless; by some of the Smartest people in the world. Breaking News: Drudge Report, FYI All 150 years of base data at EAU CRU-hard copy, written stuff… dumped to save space when they moved into their new building, and on it goes… What do I know? And NASA did the same thing with the MOon landing videos. We are running out of “Space”…We we’re all lucky that they were able to bring in a team of FX folks from Hollywood to retrieve what they could. Not that that means anything….

  67. #67 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Hello and good night Tom,

    What is the “rational man” as you know it? What is the myth that you refer to and which are you saying is correct? And why do hold this view?

    And why is this a point of focus for you?

  68. #68 wrong at large
    November 29, 2009

    626
    Don’t need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming … after that, the only question is “how much?”.

    That’s how unphysical the denialist argument is.

    Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 1:30 PM

    shouldn’t the question be,,, how many fewer people there needs to be in the world??? please inform us how many fewer people there needs to be to slow, stop or reverse AGW,,,

  69. #69 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009

    Tom:

    The word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not.

    Not only do these ignoramuses not know the difference between weather and climate, they don’t even know the difference between weather and whether.

  70. #70 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009

    Tom:

    Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form.

    Ah yes, I remember now. In the beginning, there was Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. No-one knows why they exist. They just always existed.

  71. #71 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    WAL writes:

    >*shouldn’t the question be,,, how many fewer people there needs to be in the world??? please inform us how many fewer people there needs to be to slow, stop or reverse AGW,,,*

    We’ve been there, [done that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2109484). WAL you seem really keen on pretending that a contracted population is the only solution to globaal warming. Or can I see through you and say; you seem really keen on wanting to say that AGW’er want to kill people.

    You still trying to paly that [intellectually dishonest game.

    Well, at least for you, you do not seem to be plagued by the embarressment that normal people would feel if they were to practice such a [dishonest argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2109462).

  72. #72 Lyle
    November 29, 2009

    Hiding in comments starting in 561 are a couple of questions, starting with how much does one care about the future versus the present? How much do we care what happens after we are dead?
    Let me put it this way, assume all the predictions and science are true. Then do we care? A lot of the predictions will only come to pass after we are dead. How much do we care about our childrens future? The far other end of the discussion is that it is to late to do anything, which leads to the same policy result as I don’t care, but perhaps a better interim as we all start eating drinking and being merry. (Perhaps the hidden source of the obesity epidemic, most know we are doomed and are doing the eat drink and be merry thing)(However I contend that the chances of global catastrophe have lessened since the the 1980s as the chances of global nuclear war have lessened).
    This is a subject on which science can not say anything since it is one mostly about morals and relative weightings of actions, or perhaps more metaphysical.
    Opposing taking action on climate change is the moral equivalent of voting against school taxes because your children are grown, or you have no children.

  73. #73 wrong at large
    November 29, 2009

    Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 10:40 PM

    i am not asking the question of you,,, but you knew that already,,,

    btw,,, according to you AGW kills people,,,

    also,,, your solutions for AGW kills people,,,

    but again,,, you knew that already,,,

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    November 29, 2009

    Tom pulls this from his arse:

    I did not know you were gay Bernard. I appologize.

    Strangely, you’re not the first troll to label me thus, although it escapes me for the moment who the previous homophobe was. What is it about the fundamentalist AGW denying trolls here that they feel so moved to use one’s perceived sexuality as a slur? Is it that they are subliminally self-projecting: another aspect of the cognitive dissonance that comes with their literalist acceptance of the Gordian knot of internally-contradicted Christian mythology?

    It’s this type of Fundie Christian mind-burping hypocrisy, in the face of precepts that are, to any thinking person, clearly dissonant in terms of logic and/or of moral/scientific defensibility, that initialy turned me from my own Fundie upbringing. Congratulations Tom for reminding me once again why your brand of “Christianity” is one that any sane person, and surely Jesus himself were he alive today, would eschew with great vigour.

    I suspect that you might actually be a poe in the original sense that it was used when someone initially engaged you. Whether you are one or not, I consider your contributions to be completely without substance, and as far as I am concerned, unless you have something far more sensible to say than what you have uttered to date, I’m done wasting time on you.

  75. #75 elspi
    November 29, 2009

    Dude
    WTF is with the “,,,” is that wingnut for \dots?

    [Ellipses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis) they don’t mean what you think they mean.

  76. #76 Steve Chamberlain
    November 29, 2009

    wrong at large (abridged): Instead of giving direct answers to direct questions, I’ll just imply you’re all in favour of a mass extermination campaign.

    FYI Dave Andrews tried this tack before. Read the rest of the thread if you’re interested in finding out how specious this “argument” is…

  77. #77 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Lyle,

    Have you seen the projections for water supply to Pakistan with the disappearance of glacial flows. Readers may not of the pre-existing [water conflict](http://eagle1.american.edu/~ua1607a/baglihar.htm).

    Some readers will also be aware of Pakistan’s [particular agrarian dependence]( http://www.aaas.org/international/ehn/waterpop/paki.htm) on this threatened water resource.

    The forced of nature, of mass population, and global warming induced water unavailability make this an extreme risk site for nuclear conflict.

    Damn ABC [didn't report](http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2656906.htm) Bolt’s perspective.

  78. #78 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    In post #653 WAL’s formatting might lead people to wonder if WAL is citing a prior post of mine. WAL formatting made me wonder what he was on about.

    To be clear WAL has just posted more of his/her own words to assert more rubbish.

    At the risk of perpetuating more intellectually dishonset argument from WAL I ask: how do my manifold solutions to AGW kill people?

  79. #79 wrong at large
    November 29, 2009

    the following examples kill nobody:

    zero child policy or even one or 2 child policy,,, population is still reduced,,, as is co2,,, there aren’t you happy,,,

    ban all meat eating,,, the production of which generates large amounts of co2,,, there aren’t you happy,,,

    seed and fertilize the ocean with algae that consume co2,,, there aren’t you happy,,,
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/experiment-trying-to-create-algae-bloom-goes-ahead-despite-enviro-fears/

    just a few examples,,, i am sure you can come up with many more,,,

  80. #80 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    WAL @659,

    Interesting examples, but do you care to address [my question?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2111687)

  81. #81 Lyle
    November 30, 2009

    To answer #675 even if they assume all the predictions made will come true, many people may not care, If you are 70 for example (I am not quite that age), it may not affect you. Or perhaps to take argument made re: God, perhaps they believe God will provide, or they believe that AGW is a great way to provoke the end of the world and the second coming. Yes the predicted changes are bad ,but just like many other times in history if it doesn’t directly affect you your to busy to care. Selfishness is a very powerful motivator, IMHO its a lot of the reason the economic system is in the state its in today.
    Part of the issue is that AGW is one of many effects that show up with long time constants, time constants longer than almost anyone does business plans. Imagine doing a business plan in 1960 for today. How many great predictions for the future have come true? The whole orientation of society revolves around get rich quick, in particular for the US where large parts were founded as a get rich quick scheme. Thinking long term and get rich quick create great dissonance. Part of this may be a reaction to the cold war, where there was a serious question of being blown up in the short term, resulting in a live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

    In summary the question is what do we owe the future? There are likley 6.8 billion or more answers to the question out there i.e. every person has their own answer. But a large number IMHO would answer NOTHING!!.

  82. #82 Lyle
    November 30, 2009

    Oops got dyslexic on numbers it is post #574, responding to a post not yet made would be a good trick.

  83. #83 Ric Thorpe
    November 30, 2009

    Carbon dioxide is good for agriculture. The world needs more CO2.

  84. #84 TrueSceptic
    November 30, 2009

    649 Chris,

    Or POE from Poe (unless that’s part of the Poe itself).

  85. #85 TrueSceptic
    November 30, 2009

    656 Steve,

    Just for the record, I have no objection to confining Denydiots to sealed buildings containing about 5% CO2. It’s only plant food, after all. When can we start?

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    November 30, 2009

    663 Ric,

    This appeared after I posted 665. Can I assume you’ll be the first in, to show everyone how safe it is?

  87. #87 TrueSceptic
    November 30, 2009

    666 Eh?

    Perfect for Tom’s Purity Of Essence!

  88. #88 James Smith
    November 30, 2009

    Re: 622

    To explain. The obvious difference between the two graphs is that one shows a warming trend and the other doesn’t. This is due to the addition to the first of a sloping line. The explanation offered is that site movements have produced a downward slope in the data which exactly counters this line, removal of that downward slope revealing the line. Two seconds of mathematical analysis shows that the sort of change created by station movements is a step function, not a sloping line. So the explanation offered is nonsense. They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements. What is the reason for it? On the face of it, to make the data show global show global warming when it doesn’t.

    Re: 619

    The site movement may have produced a drop of .79 of a degree in one curve, but as the curves are averaged you have to divide that by the number of sites to see the effect on the graph, which would be to cause the whole graph to shift downwards from that point on by .4, .27, .2 or even .16 of a degree depending on how many sites were being averaged at that point.

  89. #89 luminous beauty
    November 30, 2009

    >Two seconds of mathematical analysis…

    equals zero mathematical analysis

    [Step Change](http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington)

    Keep your eye on the blue line, Jimbo.

  90. #90 Janet Akerman
    November 30, 2009

    James Smith writes:

    >*They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements.*

    You could support this assertion with some evidence.

    Here are two choices:

    1) the NZ climate authorities (and presumably other authorities around the world) are cooking the books by **adding a second secret correction slope for no good reason**;

    Or

    2) When proper calibration for site changes are included the data itself shows a warming trend (trend line slope).

    Which are you claiming James?

  91. #91 wrong at large
    November 30, 2009

    it has now been ADMITTED,,,

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

  92. #92 wrong at large
    November 30, 2009

    and then some,,,

    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
    Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

  93. #93 Janet Akerman
    November 30, 2009

    WAL,

    Here’s a little project for you,

    pick out the best evidence that booker presents to support the assertion of a scientific scandal. Source the evidence, then post it here.

  94. #94 Michael Ralston
    November 30, 2009

    the UEA threw away the raw temperature data that they got from others, that still exists in those others’ archives, and that could be reconstructed from their published data anyway.

    oh my god a smoking gun.

  95. #95 Janet Akerman
    December 1, 2009

    >*the UEA threw away the raw temperature data that they got from others, that still exists in those others’ archives, and that could be reconstructed from their published data anyway.*

    Solution: Cut tax, smaller government. Reduce archiving budgets.

  96. #96 James Smith
    December 1, 2009

    Janet Akerman write:

    > You could support this assertion with some evidence.

    I explained the maths. If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don’t see how I can do anything else for you. These people are preying on the ignorance of the masses, and I’m afraid you are one of them.

  97. #97 Janet Akerman
    December 1, 2009

    >Janet Akerman writes:
    >>You could support this assertion with some evidence.

    James Smith responds:
    >*I explained the maths. If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don’t see how I can do anything else for you. These people are preying on the ignorance of the masses, and I’m afraid you are one of them.*

    So you are now passing this off as an explanation of the maths:

    >*Two seconds of mathematical analysis shows that the sort of change created by station movements is a step function, not a sloping line. So the explanation offered is nonsense.*

    That is not maths, that is assertion. And your claims of others ignorance is transparent cloaking of your own. Playing on people’s ignorance might be your game, thought your blatant falsehoods and misrepresentation will get called out here.

    BTW, LB has already provided you [this link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2113580)

    I reiterate:

    >You could support this assertion with some evidence.

    >Here are two choices:

    >1) the NZ climate authorities (and presumably other authorities around the world) are cooking the books by adding a second secret correction slope for no good reason;

    >Or

    >2) When proper calibration for site changes are included the data itself shows a warming trend (trend line slope).

    >Which are you claiming James?

  98. #98 Marco
    December 1, 2009

    @James Smith:
    I’m going to add more insult to the injury provided to your ego by Janet Akerman, and state that you need glasses. There is absolutely NO introduction of a slope in the graph.

    Let’s prove that by looking at four points on the green graph:
    1928 12.8 degrees in both graphs (before and after)
    1930 11.4 degrees in both graphs
    1992 11.7 degrees in both graphs
    1999 13.8 degrees in both graphs
    (might also be 1998)

    Quite a feat to introduce a slope that does not show up in the individual points!

  99. #99 wrong at large
    December 1, 2009

    do as i say,,, not as i do,,,

    Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
    Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customised planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?
    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece

  100. #100 Janet Akerman
    December 1, 2009

    WAL,

    Is that what you learned at Drudge, immerse yourself in the spam and suspend critical thinking?

    Step out of the Matrix WAL.

Current ye@r *