You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
But, seeing what
the man will do
no occasion to.
— Humbert Wolfe
A decline in temperatures from 1940 to 1978 has just been verified by the raw balloon data. It was a very sharp downward trend, but the crew at CRU thought it best to smooth that out.
The satellite data perfectly match the balloon data from 1979 onwards, so they argue the balloon data from the battle of Britain to the great climate shift of 1976 is good.
They hide an incline (MCA, then hide a decline after the war and now they have been caught trying to hide the postmodern decline. It doesn’t look good for the zealots.
el gordo will say anything, and correct nothing.
You are [a disgrace](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2361949) el gordo. So blind you can’t even correctly call who the zealots are.
Flash Gordo @200,
This kind of thing is meaningless without a reliable source. By reliable I mean not CO2 “science” or ICECAP. Please take note and henceforth do not make such proclaimations without linking to appropriate substantiating evidence.
Its over at Watts, I didn’t want to offend. They are looking at old magazines in search of real temperatures trends, before adjustment.
El Gordo said: “Its over at Watts. They are looking at old magazines in search of real temperatures trends, before adjustment”.
Of course they are, and no doubt it’ll be contemporary gum wrapper comic strips and old fortune cookies after that.
The wazos over there will do anything other than accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.
They are looking at old magazines in search of real temperatures trends, before adjustment.
They are (again) looking for a figleaf, hoping they can cherrypick some errors in the data that favour their preferred narrative. After all, it’s better to leave known errors uncorrected if it suits your argument, no? Simply call it “adjustment” instead of “correction” and hope the readers fall for your cute little reframing effort.
And given that all real world data has some level of error, and the chances are fairly good that any given instance of an error has either sign, they should be able to ALWAYS find some that suits their “argument” as long as they avoid drawing attention to those that go against their narrative.
Does anyone see SurfaceStations.org trumpeting the fact that “poorly sited stations” according to their criteria are responsible for – if anything – introducing a slight cooling bias? Or did they highlight instead the number of “poorly sited stations” with their “estimated errors” and leave readers to draw their own conclusions? Has Watts told his readers that there was no “systematic weeding out” of warmer stations – and that if there had been it would have introduced a slight cooling trend? Or does he continue to mislead his readers by reporting on it and let them draw their own false conclusions? What would be the scientific thing to do?
It’s ironic that “skeptics” are so unskeptical of their “skeptical” sources and so willing to indulge in groupthink on such a flimsy basis.
Both sides are hardening their resolve to win this particular battle and groupthink is unavoidable in a politically charged environment, but I agree with your sentiments.
Both sides are hardening their resolve to win this particular battle…
It might help to define your terms – what are the “sides” and what is the “battle”?
If you’re talking about the core science there’s very little battle going on. The “skeptics” haven’t come up with anything non-trivial and robust for a long time now – and whatever has come up with those attributes in the past has been generally incorporated into core “science”. There remain plenty of uncertainties and unsettled questions, but little evidence to suggest these will have an impact on the core.
If you’re talking about the battle for public opinion about what the science says, that’s a different kettle of fish. (Whether there should be such a battle is another question entirely.)
If you’re talking about the battle for public opinion about whether to believe the science, that’s different again. This is clearly going on…but one side’s tactics are largely based on dishonesty.
If you’re talking about the battle of ideas for what to do about it, that’s still different again…
NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010″
There’s also a lot of interesting stuff in there about the denialists and their timewasting FOI requests.
As you all know I’m a serial denier, so when BoM suggests this record breaking Melbourne heat spell has a climate quality about it, I automatically thought UHI.
Global warming hysteria is looking like a cargo cult.
el gordo (209): the problem with being an automaton is it limits your critical thinking capabilities somewhat, not to mention your ability to read. Ditto jumping to conclusions. Were you not such a short-sighted smart-arse you’d have read the last para in the press release…
“Melbourne’s record run reflects the very warm conditions that have been experienced across Victoria since the start of last winter. Victoria’s mean temperature for the nine months from June 2009 to February 2010 is 15.3 degrees, the highest on record, and is 1.4 degrees above the 1961-90 average. The previous record of 15.1 degrees was set in 1980”
… which would have informed you that your pet UHI theory is bollocks (save that the entire state of Victoria has been concreted over since February).
If you knew any history El Ignoranto, you’d know that of all the things to claim, cargo cult would be laughable. It’s nearly the polar opposite of that.
Your mainstream deniers attest to that all the time. They are the patrons of the cargo cult.
gordo missed this one. his reading ability isn t better than his writing ability. and his writing is obviously limited to a single sentence…
The papers were talking about Melbourne temperatures, which includes the station 086071 at Latrobe street on a traffic island surrounded by ashphalt on one of Melbourne’s busiest roads.
Night min temps are increasing across the board, that must be UHI.
perhaps you could organise a WUWT style check of temperature stations in Melbourne. I live in the city so I will keep a look out for a fat guy wearing his underpants on his head.
Very amusing and original.
the article you linked to, is from Michael Hammer. it is using an idiotic methodology (comparing absolute temperature values).
RSS satellite data can be found here.
the claim that the Victoria warming is UHI effect is plain out stupid.
IIRC it’s expected to do so due to GHG warming (which slow down cooling rates once the sun goes away), which would mean that the conclusion “that must be UHI” does not follow from the evidence.
So the Denialati read Richard Feynman and regard him as heroic, what is your problem?
A well known sociologists called Robert Merton said something to the effect that propaganda which promotes consensus in a democracy is one mechanism for defending against social anomie. In theory it seemed possible, but in practice….
Here’s a bit more on the UHI from Warwick Hughes.
Ockham’s razor slices your thinking into wafer-thin shavings. Basically, what you are saying is that owing to an unaccounted-for urban heat island effect, there has been no record warm period for metropolitan Melbourne, but hey, outside of the city something completely different has occurred, and the observed warming is real.
You’re a serial fool as well as being a serial denier.
I will make a prediction…
Fatso will continue to make vacuous, ill-considered, unsupported, pseudoscientific claims, that are instantly refuted by even a mildly-skilled lay person, until his tally of debunked idiotic pronouncements moves from well in the region of three figures to the four-figure mark.
And even then he might not stop: there is no bottom to Stupid, so he has an inexhaustible well of the stuff to tap.
I hope that your nanny has put corks on the tines of all of your forks.
The 12-month period ending with February was the third warmest in GISS’s record and the way March is going, the 12-month period ending with March will be about equal the record warmest. If April is similar to the average of the past 9 months then the 12-month record will be reached by the end of April. No need to wait another 8 months till the end of the year.
Anti-science malware is everywhere!
1. John Cook reports that his Skeptical Science web site was attacked by crackers.
2. I seem to have spotted malware running on a CRU machine.
This suggested that the regional temperature changes observed over the decade were unlikely to be observed without the influence of human greenhouse emissions, says Kearney.
He and colleagues used temperature records from the Laverton weather station, located on Melbourne’s outer edge.
This weather station was used to avoid the “urban heat island” effect of the city of Melbourne on temperature records, says Kearney.
ABC Science March 17
Bollocks, Laverton is now residential.
Over which decade, Gordozola? The last decade?
Interestingly, according to wikipedia (damn, I know, get a reliable source etc. But it’s bedtime.), Laverton had only 162 more people living in it in 2006 than in 1961 – a total of 4502 residents. Sounds like a real boom town…
I have just come back from my morning bike ride through Laverton and yes it is still outer edge.
It is weather station 087031 at the Laverton RAAF base. Have a look at its location 37.86° S, 144.76° E in Google maps oh “el gordo con los calzoncillos en la cabeza”
[My prediction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2364638) was fulfilled [less than 9 and 1/2 hours later](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2365240).
Fatso’s guff was almost immediately slapped down by Stu and especially [by MikeH](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2365532).
The guy just doesn’t learn.
Which is the root of his problem, really…
Just came back to mop up the mess and found these words along the way.
‘They used a combination of computer models to create a theoretical historical temperature record covering an area (grid cell) that includes Melbourne and Laverton. The models include inputs for man-made and natural effects on temperature.
The temperature record in Laverton (adjusted for UHI, I don’t know) correlates with the computer models therefore validates the model. Remove the man-made inputs and they no longer correlate thus validating AGW.’
Stephen J. of Erskineville (author)
Just came back to ignore the mockery of my everchanging, contradictory views and to try and launch the topic off on another pointless tangent.
[Prediction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2364638) fulfilled [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/open_thread_44.php#comment-2365789).
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.