The Island of Doubt

This has nothing to do with climatology, or science in general, but I can’t resist sharing it with you. From the instructions to our new DTV antenna, which until the Great Ice Storm of 2010 damaged its transformer-coaxial connection, brought in more watchable channels than expanded basic cable or satellite:


For those that might have trouble reading the scanned text, which appears at the bottom of the instructions page in 6-point type, it says:

WARNING Do not attempt to install if drunk or pregnant or both. Do not throw antenna at spouse.

I do hope that no one at Antennas Direct gets in trouble for this.


  1. #2 Pierre Caron
    February 25, 2010


  2. #3 Erasmussimo
    February 25, 2010

    They left out “Do not hit self on head with antenna.” Call the lawyers!

  3. #4 Art
    February 25, 2010

    Label on chainsaw along the lines of: ‘Do not start while holding between legs’.

    Evidently someone held it between their knees and when the saw started the heavier parts, and the handles, were behind their knees and …

    You, out of the gene pool … the hard way.

    Hard to specify and exclude every variation of foolishness. Humor should be encouraged. Even if the legal department takes a grim view of it.

  4. #5 Pete
    February 25, 2010

    You don’t get out much do you?

  5. #6 Lance
    February 25, 2010

    I once gave a friend a Lava Lamp as a gag birthday gift. It had a ring of plastic flowers at its base.

    Under the fake flowers was a sticker that said.

    “Artificial flowers. DO NOT water.”

  6. #7 Temperaturegate Exposed Yet Again
    February 26, 2010

    There’s a new paper out by Dr. Edward Long that does some interesting comparisons to NCDC’s raw data (prior to adjustments) that compares rural and urban station data, both raw and adjusted in the CONUS.

    The paper is titled Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets. In it, Dr. Edward Long states:

    “The problem would seem to be the methodologies engendered in treatment for a mix of urban and rural locations; that the ‘adjustment’ protocol appears to accent to a warming effect rather than eliminate it. This, if correct, leaves serious doubt for whether the rate of increase in temperature found from the adjusted data is due to natural warming trends or warming because of another reason, such as erroneous consideration of the effects of urban warming.”

    Here is the comparison of raw rural and urban data:

    And here is the comparison of adjusted rural and urban data:

    Note that even adjusted urban data has as much as a 0.2 offset from adjusted rural data.

    Dr. Long suggests that NCDC’s adjustments eradicated the difference between rural and urban environments, thus hiding urban heating. The consequence:

    “…is a five-fold increase in the rural temperature rate of increase and a slight decrease in the rate of increase of the urban temperature.”

    The analysis concludes that NCDC “…has taken liberty to alter the actual rural measured values”.

    Thus the adjusted rural values are a systematic increase from the raw values, more and more back into time and a decrease for the more current years. At the same time the urban temperatures were little, or not, adjusted from their raw values. The results is an implication of warming that has not occurred in nature, but indeed has occurred in urban surroundings as people gathered more into cities and cities grew in size and became more industrial in nature. So, in recognizing this aspect, one has to say there has been warming due to man, but it is an urban warming. The temperatures due to nature itself, at least within the Contiguous U. S., have increased at a non-significant rate and do not appear to have any correspondence to the presence or lack of presence of carbon dioxide.

    The paper’s summary reads:

    Both raw and adjusted data from the NCDC has been examined for a selected Contiguous U. S. set of rural and urban stations, 48 each or one per State. The raw data provides 0.13 and 0.79 oC/century temperature increase for the rural and urban environments. The adjusted data provides 0.64 and 0.77 oC/century respectively. The rates for the raw data appear to correspond to the historical change of rural and urban U. S. populations and indicate warming is due to urban warming. Comparison of the adjusted data for the rural set to that of the raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the rural adjusted set’s temperature rate of increase to be 5-fold more than that of the raw data. The adjusted urban data set’s and raw urban data set’s rates of temperature increase are the same. This suggests the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to cause historical data to take on the time-line characteristics of urban data. The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the Contiguous U. S.

    The full paper may be found here: Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets (PDF) and is freely available for viewing and distribution.

    Dr. Long also recently wrote a column for The American Thinker titled: A Pending American Temperaturegate

  7. #8 Marco
    February 26, 2010

    Ah, Edward Long “selected” certain stations. And the paper is published where exactly? Ah, it isn’t. I’m guessing E&E will be jumping on it soon, though.

    Of course, Menne et al already thoroughly thrashed the whole idea. But I see that after attacking GISTEMP and HADCRU, NCDC is now to be attacked. I think we may need to contact JMA and warn them that they also will be attacked soon. And then the satellite records are next in line. That Long’s analysis is bound to be wrong doesn’t matter, all the deniosphere needs to do is to point to “questions” directed at the procedures of the various groups, and confusion is bound to stick to some people.

  8. #9 dhogaza
    February 26, 2010

    Yer a LIAR!

    Posted by: dhogaza | February 26, 2010 10:19 AM

    I did not post this. No rules against masquerading as other posters here?

  9. #10 Derr Hog Hozer
    February 26, 2010

    Time for weird Al to get cuffed and perp-walked.

  10. #11 Dubya
    February 26, 2010

    Because we don’t want scientists who are advocates. We’re not interested in scientists who don’t mention their doubts. We’re sick of your inane “simplified dramatic statements”. We laugh when you cry wolf with your scary scenarios. Call us crazy, but we want scientists who are honest, not scientists who balance honesty and effectiveness. You want trust? Get honest, kick out the scoundrels, and for goodness sakes, get a clue about humility.

    Because the truth is, climate science is one of the newest sciences. The truth is, we know little about the climate, we’ve only been studying it intensely for a couple decades. The truth is, we can’t project the climate of the next decade, much less that of the next century. The truth is, we have no general theory of climate. The truth is, we don’t know if an average temperature rise of a couple degrees will be a net benefit or a net loss. The truth is, all of us are human, and our knowledge of the climate is in its infancy. And I don’t appreciate being lectured by infants. I don’t appreciate being told that I should be put in the dock in a Nuremberg style trial for disagreeing with infants. You want to restore trust? Come down off your pedestals, forsake your ivory towers, and admit your limitations.

    And through all of this, be aware that you have a long, long, long climb back up to where we will trust you. As Lincoln warned, you have forfeited the confidence of your fellow citizens, and you will be damn lucky if you ever get it back


  11. #12 Pete
    February 26, 2010

    FROM NYT – January 26, 1989

    This is why it was necessary to start faking up the US Temp data. Get that little hockey stick thing working. Makes perfect sense now.

    U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
    By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
    Correction Appended
    WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

    While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

    The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

    Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

    Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.

    Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

    But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.

    Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted

    Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

    Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.

    Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.

    ”We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,” he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

    Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ”no quarrel” with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ”If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random” when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

    ”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,” he added. ”It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.”

    Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ”statistical fluke.” Possibililty of Countereffects

    Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.

    Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.

    Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns. Legislative Action Sought

    Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.

    The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere’s ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.

    graphs of temperatures and rainfall from 1895 to 1987 (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

  12. #13 Curious as a Cat
    February 26, 2010

    Hey – how come this site doesn’t have one of those cool “blog of the year” emblems? Just askin.

  13. #14 bi -- IJI
    February 27, 2010

    Shorter Pete:

    I have no sense of humour.

  14. #15 David
    February 27, 2010

    When Phil Jones suggested that if folks didn’t like his surface temperature reconstructions, then perhaps they should do their own, he was right. The SPPI analysis of rural versus urban trends demonstrates the nature of the overall problem. It does not, however, go into sufficient detail. A close examination of the data suggests three areas needing address. Two involve the adjustments made by NCDC (NOAA) and by GISS (NASA). Each made their own adjustments and typically these are serial, the GISS done on top of the NCDC. The third problem is organic to the raw data and has been highlighted by Anthony Watts in his Surface Stations project. That involves the “micro-climate” biases in the raw data.

    As Watts points out, while there are far too many biased weather station locations, there remain some properly sited ones. Examination of the data representing those stations provides a clean basis by which to demonstrate the peculiarities in the ‘adjustments’ made by NCDC and GISS.

    Bottom Line. Temperature does NOT track with a 3 ppm of contribution of Plant food. Never has. Unless of course, you write a computer program and fudge the data to FORCE it to happen on paper.


  15. #16 Little Bo Peep
    February 27, 2010

    The almost 1 deg C negative bias for pre 1990 temp records by the NCDC is common and the almost 1.5 deg C negative bias for pre 1900 temp records by the GISS is common. The whole stupid claim of AGW is nothing but a red herring. Now that that is established, we simply follow the money to find and prosecute the crooks & their enablers.

    As for you believer sheep baa baa (sheep talk for bye bye)

  16. #17 dhogaza
    February 27, 2010

    Two involve the adjustments made by NCDC (NOAA) and by GISS (NASA). Each made their own adjustments and typically these are serial, the GISS done on top of the NCDC.

    Right. The first are adjustments for things like station moves, time of observation.

    My understanding is that the GISS adjustments are for UHI.

    This would seem the right order in which to make the adjustments.

    The third problem is organic to the raw data and has been highlighted by Anthony Watts in his Surface Stations project. That involves the “micro-climate” biases in the raw data.

    Which has been shown by several people, now, to make no difference.

    Notice that Watts and D’Aleo, on their latest attack on the station data, dropped the “micro-climate” bias crap and shifted to an entirely new tactic, fewer stations are included in more recent years.

    Tamino, a professional statistician, has ripped up their so-called analysis (actually done by the incompetent supposed “computer expert” EM Smith who I, an actually expert, wouldn’t hire to hit the reboot button on a server, if he’s incompetent as his blog makes him appear). Station drop-out makes no difference. He’ll be publishing his work in a professional journal.

    As Watts points out, while there are far too many biased weather station locations, there remain some properly sited ones. Examination of the data representing those stations provides a clean basis by which to demonstrate the peculiarities in the ‘adjustments’ made by NCDC and GISS.

    There’s also the new CRN, designed especially to gather data with a precision needed for climate monitoring. This has been compared with existing data from the historical weather station network. Matches nicely. Analysis has been done only using Watts’ “good stations”. Matches nicely. Analysis has been done using “bad stations” using modern, computerized sensors which are known to have a slight bias. Matches nicely. Adjust for the bias … slightly higher warming trend.

    Watts has promised an analysis for the last year or so, and nothing’s forthcoming. He’s not competent to do an analysis in the first place, but no matter. He’s not doing any analysis. Other people are. He’s complaining “but they’re using my published data!”. Tough. You’re not going to do analysis, you’re putting data out there, other people will step up. And … nothing. GISTEMP does a great job.

  17. #18 Marco
    February 28, 2010

    James, could you do something about this fake dhogaza stalking the real dhogaza? It’s really sad, but it appears someone has no life.

    I’m doing my best to ban the relevant IP addresses and deleting the comments. But I can only devote so much time, I’m afraid. — jh

  18. #19 Pete
    February 28, 2010

    In my opinion, simplicity, objectivity, and repeatability should be of paramount importance. Once one starts making subjective adjustments of individual stations’ data, the ability to replicate work becomes almost impossible.

    Therefore, more important than the recently reported “do-over” of a global temperature reanalysis proposed by the UK’s Met Office would be other, independent researchers doing their own global temperature analysis. In my experience, better methods of data analysis come from the ideas of individuals, not from the majority rule of a committee.

    Of particular interest to me at this point is a simple and objective method for quantifying and removing the spurious warming arising from the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The recent paper by McKitrick and Michaels suggests that a substantial UHI influence continues to infect the GISS and CRU temperature datasets.

    In fact, the results for the U.S. I have presented above almost seem to suggest that the Jones CRUTem3 dataset has a UHI adjustment that is in the wrong direction. Coincidentally, this is also the conclusion of a recent post on Anthony Watts’ blog, discussing a new paper published by SPPI.

    It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.

  19. #20 dhogaza
    February 28, 2010



  20. #21 Marco
    February 28, 2010


    Is 4 independent groups not enough for you?
    HADCRU (UEA/Met office)
    JMA (Japanese Meteorological Association).

    And what “recent” McKitrick&Michaels paper are you referring to? The one where they had to correct their radians/degrees error, essentially invalidating their analysis (although they, of course, did not admit that) ?

    Why are the satellites showing similar warming as the land-based measurements, when UHI supposedly is so important?

    Or are you just parroting Roy Spencer…?
    (ah yes, you are)

  21. #22 dhogaza
    February 28, 2010

    There are not 4 “independent” data sets.


    Liar Liar

  22. #23 Phil
    February 28, 2010


    Every man for himself!!!

    -Cheers, Phil

  23. #24 dhogaza
    February 28, 2010

    The Goretard surfaces for a moment before going back into hiding….

    “It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”


  24. #25 You go Warmers!
    March 1, 2010

    You go there psycho religious nutjob warmers! Keep it up. You’ll be cuffed and perp-walked right along with your agw religious leaders.

    Seven-month-old baby survives shot to chest in parents’ murder-suicide pact blamed on global warming fears
    BY Ethan Sacks
    Monday, March 1st 2010, 10:03 AM

    A seven-month-old girl miraculously survived alone for three days after one of her parents shot her in the chest – apparently as part of a bizarre murder-suicide pact blamed on global warming.

    The baby was discovered with a bullet casing in her chest and covered with blood by police in the Argentinean city of Goya, near the bodies of her parents and 2-year-old brother, the Latin American Herald reported Saturday.

    Police broke into the home after neighbors complained of a stench coming from the house. The boy was found with a gunshot wound in his back, while his parents died from gunshot wounds to the chest.

    The parents, 56-year-old Francisco Lotero and 23-year-old Miriam Coletti, are believed to have been spurred by their fears about global climate change, London’s Telegraph reported.

    A letter was found on a table expressing the couple’s anger at the government for not responding to the environmental crisis.

    Doctors said the baby’s condition has been improving every day, the Herald Tribune reported

    Read more:

  25. #26 ManPigBear
    March 1, 2010

    Well. It looks like Global Warming actually finally killed someone. The Libtards will be celebrating this major victory for “science” no doubt. U buncha whacko morons.

  26. #27 Phil
    March 1, 2010

    Phil Jones March 1, 2010:

    “You’re damn right I hid the data”



    Phil Jones sweats on the hot seat: Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits he hid data – because it was ’standard practice’

    The scientist at the heart of the fraudlent practices and damning emails associated with the ‘Climategate’ row over global warming admitted he “hid data because it had become standard practice”, it emerged today.

    Professor Phil Jones, embattled ex-director of the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.

    An independent probe is examining the actual activities behind the science that scientists hid, manipulated and deleted data in order to exaggerate the case for “man-made global warming”.

    Oh oh Bongo!!!!!!!

    -Cheers, Phil

  27. #28 Pete
    March 1, 2010

    “Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.”

    And….now we know why.

  28. #29 Pants on the Ground
    March 1, 2010

    Step 1. get some data. drop the points you don’t like. apply fudge factors with secret code to make it plot the way you want. Call it a “raw dataset”.

    Step 2. take the fraudlently manipulated data from step 1, and further manipulate it. drop some. add some. adjust some newer data up. adjust some older data down. call it dataset 2.

    Step 3. Take dataset 2, and have someone else apply even more bias and manipulation. call it dataset 3.

    Step 4. Hide errr.rr.r….um Lose the raw data and codes from step 1 through 3. Save the plots though. Forward them to Al Gore.

    Stand back and say – YEP! all the datasets agree.


New comments have been disabled.