This concerns his recent hackjob about HadCRUT4.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/
Watts posts the following graph. Apart from this being a piss poor graph without dates or labels (good enough for WUWT it seems) there are some deeply disturbing points in its fabrication I'd like to raise.
What Watts means by the "past is cooler" is that over the period ~1975-2000 the blue line (HadCRUT4) in the graph is lower than the red line (HadCRUT3). But here's a proper comparison of HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 by the Hadley Centre. Notice that it's the period post-2000 that is warmer in HadCRUT4. The period 1975-2000 is about the same.
So why does the D'Aleo graph Watts has posted show the opposite? It's because D'Aleo for some reason (insert your theory here) shifted HadCRUT4 upwards so that the period post-2000 matched with HadCRUT3. What's disturbing about this are the following points:
- The Met Office graph above clearly shows the periods the adjustments affected which also shows Watts claim that the "past" was adjusted down is false. How has Watts not seen this graph? Did he not research HadCRUT4 before posting on HadCRUT4?
- Joe D'Aleo made a plot comparison of HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 even though such a graph by the Met Office above already existed. Why?
- Watts used D'Aleos plot rather than the Met Office one. Why?
- If Joe D'Aleo had plotted the entire HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 he would not have been able to offset them incorrectly. The error would be obvious.
- But Joe D'Aleo didn't plot the entire records. Why? He chose to start the plot in ~1975...
- Dates aren't labeled on the graph making it harder to spot this.
It Gets Worse
Watts: Here’s the older HadCRUT data set from 2001, compared to 2008 and 2010. The past got cooler then too.
Except the graph Watts posts for 2001 is Northern Hemisphere only. Not Global. Yes the graph Watts posts claims it's global - but its WRONG. The graph is from the following 2003 paper which updated HadCRUT to 2001:
http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~yzq/books/paper5_IPCC/Jones2003.pdf
In short Watts is comparing HadCRUT 2001 Northern Hemisphere with HadCRUT 2010 Global and claiming the difference is due to adjustments. Shouldn't he know better on this subject?
Watts: On the other side of the pond, here’s the NASA GISS 1980 data set compared with the 2010 version. More cooling of the past.
Bullshit again. He's made another mistake. why does anyone take him seriously at all?
Again notice the graph Watts posts has no sources. Is that because he doesn't want people to be able to check what the graphs show? Imagine the fuss Watts would make if scientists did this! Now either Watts doesn't know the sources of this graph and is pushing out unverified smears or he does know the sources and is deliberately misleading people. Because here is the source of the NASA GISS 1980 dataset in his graph (the lower plot):
It's from this paper: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
Small problem with that graph: ITS LAND ONLY. And Watts is comparing it to GISS 2010 GLOBE LAND+SEA.
Seriously. How can he get away with making mistake after mistake? I hope fence sitters might finally wake up and realize just how misleading WUWT is after reading this catalog of errors. Just to drive the point home I've crudely overlaid GISTEMP 1980 on GISTEMP Met Stations only as of 2009 so we can see the huge adjustments Hansen has made to the past data that Watts alledges:
Ha that's the massive adjustments is it?
Folk over at WUWT just don't BOTHER going to the papers and comparing the datasets properly and finding out there are no massive changes. Instead year after year they happily push out the same junk graphs without checking them because it supports what they want to believe. They remain immune to any corrections. They just ignore them and post the same false graphs again another time.
Again: Why does anyone take these people seriously?
And finally lets witness the arrogance of Anthony Watts after he makes such a load of errors documented above:
Watts: In the private sector, doing what we see above would cost you your job, or at worst (if it were stock data monitored by the SEC) land you in jail for securities fraud. But hey, this is climate science. No worries.
It's ironic see? If anything it would be Watts who would be in jail after that stunt with the above graphs. Not scientists.
Watts: And they wonder why we don’t trust them or their data.
Again more irony! Who has demonstrated a reason to distrust them and their presented data?
Here's the thing: In Watt's arrogance he puts forward a kind of authority. We don't see him questioning his own abilities when he pushes his "manipulations" claims. Instead people take it at face value that the graphs he is posting are genuine GISTEMP and HadCRUT comparisons when they are not. In other words people are misled in the most heinous way: they are misled to dismissing scientists as frauds.
Even if we assume ignorance, which we must, consider that Surface Temperature Records are supposed to be Watts bread and butter subject and yet he hasn't learnt a thing it seems. Over all these years he still hasn't figured out the actual story about adjustments made in the past and he is still pushing false claims about station dropoff (see the 2nd graph caption). He could probably continue on course for another 1000 years and not learn a damn thing about the subject. He seems quite literally stuck on stupid.
Well done.
ReplyDeleteMore where that came from please!
Watts is guilty of projection bias.
ReplyDelete"Small problem with that graph: ITS LAND ONLY."
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but it's relative to the 1880-1980 mean (they weren't using a 1951-1980 base in 1980). Different reference level.
It is the crutem4 vs crutem3:
ReplyDeletehttp://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/5225-crutem4-global-warming-and-the-arctic.html
however the two series are also shifted, the crutem4 should be warmer during the last decades not colder before:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/826/crutem.png/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/
obviously i have mislabeled crutem3 and crutem4, the crutem4 is warmer in the last decade.
ReplyDeleteExcellent analyses! Watts is an utter buffoon--but he's got his core of sycophants thoroughly convinced that he is The One True Keeper Of Scientific Truth.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up!
So what?
ReplyDeleteFiddle the past temps all you want, in the next few years temps will fall due to real effects on the earth system and there will be no more fudge room.
If it wasn't for the sheer ugliness of you lot I would feel pity for you wasting your lives on junk science.
Hi, my name's Keith Battye, I don't believe I caught yours.
ReplyDeleteI notice you have left a number of Anthony Watt's points out of your critique, why is that?
Just in case anyone want's to go over there and comment. It's a very friendly place and all that is asked is to refrain from profanity, character attacks and Off Topic trolling . . . he is very tolerant of dissent and debate so you may well like it there . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/
So the hadcrut4 trend is lower than hadcrut3?
ReplyDeleteIf you had bothered to read properly the WUWT post, you might have noticed that it is by Steve Milloy, not Anthony Watts.
ReplyDeleteAs for the HADCRUT graph, it's an unreadable mess, so it's not surprising someone wanted to plot a clearer one.
Watts' disciples simply don't care about the disinformation peddled at his site. There's little point in engaging a person who when proven wrong simply moves on to another argument.
ReplyDeleteLook, your boy couldn't even get the author right when he jumped right in and you call those guys over at WUWT "disciples". Really ?
ReplyDeleteThere is a new thread up by Bob Tisdale on the same topic. Go on over and argue, put your point of view and don't be so sure they move on because you have won. There have been many instances when a contrary standpoint has won the day and everyone at WUWT has learnt something.
C'mon, you can do it. Get into the fun of arguing your point rather than just hanging out with a bunch of folks who agree with you all the time.
Here's the program:
ReplyDelete1) Watts is the best science site in the world;
2) Watts can't be relied on;
3) Science can't be trusted;
4) Therefore the Free Market is the only answer;
4) $$PROFIT$$
So the microWatts crowd are just doing drive byes without conceding that the graphics posted at WUWT are fudged? Have anyone of you actualy taken the time to read the above post? Appears not.
ReplyDeleteLovely how self-assured the microwatts crowd are-- talk about Dunning-Kruger.
"Anonymous ar 20, 2012 09:54 AM
ReplyDeleteIf you had bothered to read properly the WUWT post, you might have noticed that it is by Steve Milloy, not Anthony Watts."
Of course, that would be the same Steve MIlloy (from the aptly named website "JunkScience") who so notoriously screwed up the GISSTEMP data, his figure was then uncritically used by Lindzen to falsely accuse NASA of fudging the data ;)
And now we have Watts uncritically posting more of Milloy's BS. No surprises there; sad too that Anthony did not learn his lesson the first time. Oh well, maybe he is just a slow learner.
The "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW can't get anything right.
Here's another one from that article: Watts/Milloy point to the chart of adjustments made to the USHCN data sets and then immediately claim that "We have yet to witness a new dataset release where a cooling adjustment has been applied… This is partly why they argue so fervently against a UHI effect… which would require a cooling adjustment."
ReplyDeleteBut the graph they published comes straight from the USHCN website, which clearly describes the UHI adjustments made to the data set, resulting in a 0.1°F cooling adjustment.
Great! You're obviously very clever. Most grateful if you would focus your laser-powered intellect to a critique (minus the ad hom please) as to why the analysis and conclusions in this article are wrong:
ReplyDeletehttp://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/
and same for this article:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/near-enough-for-a-sheep-station/
And when your done, I really would be most grateful (genuinely) to hear your take on why the missing 'hotspot' doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire CAGW hypothesis. Given that the missing 'hotspot' must invalidate the amplification factors used in ALL the GCMs to generate the predictions of dangerous (rapid) warming on which the entire CAGW hysteria has been constructed and on which theIPCC and governments around the world have relied in setting policies to mitigate these model predictions of CAGW.
Please explain.
Anonymouse Genius said I really would be most grateful (genuinely) to hear your take on why the missing 'hotspot' doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire CAGW hypothesis.
DeleteSimple: The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track.
Get that? The hot spot is not a signature of greenhouse warming and neither does finding it prove that humans are causing global warming. It is irrelevant to the question of whether the greenhouse effect is happening. It is also irrelevant to the question of whether any warming is caused by human emission. It is irrelevant to the theory of AGW. Can you spell "irrelevant"?
...
Delete"On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of
surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification..."
Santer et. al. Science 2005
You cite the study and then manage to mis-represent it. Can you spell hysterical?
So it does appear that its absence maynot be irrelevant to validity of the CG models and their propensity to cause dangerous climate change hysteria.
And...
Delete"We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."
Douglass et. al. 2008
Abstract at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract
And...
Delete"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.
Surprisingly, direct temperature observations fromradiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend..."
Allen& Sherwood, Nature Geoscience 2008
Can you spell: must buy some better spectacles?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/full/ngeo208.html
DeleteWarming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds
Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.
So let's get this straight. The thermometers can't be relied upon to measure temperature in teh atmosphere but the wind gauges can?
DeleteHas anyone told the data massage clinics at GISS and CRU? I mean, surely, they should be abandoning the land-based thermometers and using wind gauges to measure temperature anomolies, right?
And has anyone thought to mention it to the political classes who are busily wrecking the economies of the former liberal democracies - or Al Gore and the other high priests of CAGW ("The Cause") that the 'W' in CAGW no longer stands for Warming - it now stands for Wind.
... "as in, honest guv, we're not wind-ing you up"
Can you spell: INTEGRITY?
So the fake skeptics were OK misrepresenting Allen and Sherwood to conform to their belief system, but when they are called on cherry picking quotes out of context, suddenly the paper's methodology is called into question by the fake skeptics. Wow, just wow.
DeleteCome of fake skeptics, up your game!
There was NO mis-representing of Allen & Sherwood's paper by cherry picking. Suggest you re-read, carefully, the chain above.
DeleteIf you do you will see that owlbrudder's response to my original question was to 'bait & switch' - a tactic so beloved by warmists it seems - if you note: my specific use of "CAGW" - which he chose to deceptively re-phrase as "global warming", "greenhouse", "AGW" (everything but CAGW).
Do you see what he did? He changed the question to one he wanted to answer in order to avoid the problems he knew he would face in answering mine.
He then appealed to authority eg., Sander et. al. 2005, to support his bait & switch "trick".
Unfortunately for him, a short extract from the very citation he appealed to helped confirm that the GCMs all predict the 'hotspot'.
I then posted extracts from several other papers, including Sherwood & Allen's 2008 paper, to further clarify that fact (that GC models predict the presence of a 'hotspot').
Subsequently, in later poasts (below) I went on to deal with the claims from others on this site that the observations and the predictions are not inconsistent. But that this was not the objective in my early use of the extract from Allen & Sherwood's paper - you mistakenly claim was evidence of my cherry picking or mis-representation.
All clear?
Anonymous,
Deleteowlbrudder answered your question directly, I don't know why you are accusing him of "bait & switch" tactics. Surely a better example of B&S would be someone trying to make the discussion about the "hotspot" when the subject of the thread is something else altogether.
I also don't know why you are going to such pains to prove that GCMs predict the "hotspot" as this isn't in dispute. In fact you don't need a GCM, it's very basic atmospheric physics. The point is it's nothing to do with the case for (or against) AGW (or "CAGW").
Now I think you know that none of what you wrote has any basis in truth. All of the CAGW gurus unequivocally accept that the hotspot is a central predicate of the models, the amplifcation factors used in those models, the model predictions of catastophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and by logical extension, the rational the parasitical classes have used to loot the productive members of society.
DeleteWithout the 'C' in CAGW there is no cause for alarm. And this conclusion is not only based on the overwhelming evidence from radiosonde temperature measurements but also from teh overwhelming evidence of no warming since 1998, which is, of course, in contradiction to the flawed CAGW models - as shown by satellite and surface measurements (including hadCRUT4!), by the ocean temperature data, and from measurements of outgoing radiation.
What's more, the global avge sea level rise of 1.3" per century is not accelerating, ice cover perfectly unremarkable by historical experience (ie. prior to the vast majority of atmospheric man-made CO2) and is perfectly normal for an INTER-GLACIAL period in which we find ourselves....I could go on.
The desperate attempts by the gurus and their sycophants to try to invert reality is farcical. Stop embarrassing yourselves. This entire Al Gore fixation thing is getting out of hand. Everything is going to be ok. Really. So just relax. And get back to your leggo.
And on emore thing... perhaps one of the dungeons and dragons fantasists could talk me through this little gem:
Deletehttp://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/an-adjustment-like-alice/
Well nails and coffins, you are attracting the extremists now, so you must be doing a good job ;) They are now so desperate that they are arguing strawmen and floating red herrings.
ReplyDeleteD'Aleo and Milloy screwed up, as did Tony when he posted their BS-- accept it and move on.
Watts' disciples apparently also have poor reading comprehension. There's really no point in engaging a person who doesn't understand the words.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the deniers are trying to substantiate their beliefs with some papers. But, as owlbrudder notes, they are arguing a strawman.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, how about we look at the latest literature? Thorne et al. (2011):
"It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively."
[http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC80.html]
Above the "skeptics" then go on to misrepresent Allen and Sherwood by cherry picking from their abstract, what they did not post is this finding from their paper:
"Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."
[http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html]
The "skeptics" continue to do what they do best, one-sided skepticism and dishonesty.
Abandoning centuries of scientific method (as in using wind gauges + dodgy math to infer temperature - in preference to measuring it directly using thermometers) was always going to be a little bit of a stretch.
DeleteSo best just review the data, using some friendly assumptions, then re-analyse it using friendly statistical techniques that conveniently increase the error bars and – hey presto! - we can just say that we now don't see any inconsistencies between the theory and the data...
Or to put it in science-speak:
“This review documents the evolution over the last four decades of understanding of tropospheric temperature trends and their likely causes. Particular focus is given to the difficulty of producing homogenized datasets, with which to derive trends, from both radiosonde and satellite observing systems, because of the many systematic changes over time ...It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.”
(Thorne et. al. 2011)
But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of radiosonde weather balloon temperature readings taken during the last 25-30yr warming phase (to early 2000's) did not detect the predicted warming (“hotspot”) in the tropical troposhere.
And without the hotspot we can have NO confidence in the global climate models with their erroneously encoded water vapour feedbacks - because without the erroneous feedbacks the warming trend is not amplified and without the amplification there is no catastrophic... anything... just another nice sunny day!
You guys are definitely in the wrong business. You should be doing stand-up. But I guess there’s less money it.
Can you spell 'scam'?
The only "scam" here is the perversion of science by fake skeptic blogs like WUWT to desperately (and disingenuously) try and caste doubt on the new HadCRUT data.
DeleteFake skeptics seem to have trouble staying on topic and are seemingly intent on arguing strawmwen rather than conceding that what happened at WUWT was BS-- as so nicely demonstrated in the main post.
Au contraire!
DeleteI think this blog has been fascinating on many levels - not least because we are now properly aware of the alarmist' methoidological preference for using wind guages to infer temperature over its direct measurement using thermometers.
And I think that has important implications for the entire catastrophic anthropogenic wind industry - not least of which is how we should now interpret the hadCRUT thermometer data!
What's the deal with sea levels then?
ReplyDeleteI have been at the fence at one time. After much research and independent investigation I have come to agree that the world is warming and is due to human activities. The research is not easy to do, even for someone with some scientific training like myself.
ReplyDeleteUsually when I question a scientist, they respond to the question in a comprehensive manner with links and claims. Usually they hold up to scrutiny. When I solicited some open, honest questions from some denialists on the matter, however, the response was a little different. It was striking to me, in comparison to the scientists, how little they made the effort to educate me on the topic of discourse. Their typical pattern is to post a brief claim, sometimes followed by a link to the source. When I click on the source, my reading of it often contradicts their claims. This pattern is shown everywhere (including here, just see the above); and they make no honest attempts at educating the actual science.
I once responded to a denialist claim about PETM oxygen isotopes, based on my own reading of a link to a graph that was provided. His response that the signature clearly showed a CO2 lag was ambiguous at best, because of graph resolution, and upon closer examination I saw a slight lead in the CO2 signature. In short, in the face of ambiguity they claim it is "obvious that CO2 lags..." whereas a scientist would say "the graph does not provide enough resolution. However, more detailed analysis would show..." I knew the case was closed, and that if I had tried to argue further, it would not convince him because his previous assertions were all such barefaced, dishonest lies. It was like arguing with a brick wall.
Scientists are not excellent at the art of speech. Even Mike Mann stammers and fills his sentences with long pauses and "umms" and "uhhhs." But that doesn't mean they're stupid; they compensate for it very well with quantitative ability. The important point though, is that with a supposed lack in verbal communication (on average), scientists can't possibly form a worldwide communist cabal. Engineers like myself are similar in a way: intensely competitive. Other professions are more likely to boast worldwide conspiracy due to superior verbal skill: lawyers, businessmen, etc.
I encourage all those who are confused on the issue to read the facts and thoroughly investigate. What matters is how honest are their responses? Do they have credible background on the relevant science? And most importantly: How willing are they to teach the unabridged information?
One thing I feel I must touch on which so often gets missed is that scepticism is a good thing. If I were not sceptical about climate science then I might easily have clicked the back button, not read this article, and simply accepted the view of HadCRUT 4 offered by WUWT. I'm open minded enough not to do that, but that open mindedness does mean I cannot accept the orthodox view of climate science at face value. For this I am labelled a 'denier'. It makes me sad to be honest.
ReplyDeleteAnon. @01:19 PM
ReplyDelete"but that open mindedness does mean I cannot accept the orthodox view of climate science at face value. For this I am labelled a 'denier'."
Strawman. This thread is about the new HadCRUT dataset and efforts by the fake skeptics to dismiss it, undermine it, call it into question. Funnily, the same fake skeptics do not have a problem citing HadCRUT3 when trying to claim that global warming stopped in (insert year here).
But a "fake skeptic" would make him/her a non-skeptic, that is, abeliever? You could say: fake fake skeptic, or just use its contraction: skeptic; but "fake skeptic" is tautological in the sense that you intend, surely?
DeleteThey are described as fake skeptics because, while they claim to engage things in a skeptical manner, they actually hold a position which is unswayable by evidence.
DeleteTo use the example of the invisible dragon in the garage:
A true skeptic would not believe the dragon is there until he sees the footprint, the thermal camera shows the flaming breath, the thrown paint reveals a row of spines, etc.
A fake skeptic does things like saying "if there were a dragon it would leave footprints," then reacting to the footprints with things like "footprints aren't enough, you also need to detect the flaming breath." (Then claiming any demonstration of said breath was faked by a conspiracy of scalies.)
There you go with your childish fantasies... "dragon footprints", "flaming breath"..
DeleteWarmists, as a rule, do live in a fantasy world - it is true. About time they grew-up though and began to exercise more self-respect and maturity.
"Conspiracy of scalies"??
Or to take a historical example, a heliocentricity fake-sceptic might have said, "Okay Jupiter's moons orbit Jupiter, and the planets orbit the sun, but the earth is stationary. I won't believe our planet moves until we can observe a parallax view of a given star."
Delete...then die before a measurable parallax is observed and so "win" the argument.
Watts is a pathological liar, beneath contempt. He and his half-witted acolytes will be denounced in the worst possible terms in the very near future.
ReplyDelete"He and his half-witted acolytes...."
DeleteAgreed. Not that more evidence is required, but Watts is a big fan of Monckton, flew all the way to CA to see him preach.
The fake skeptics have nothing but bluster and rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Case in point, see the error riddled rant at 5:27 PM ;)
Not one of them have yet made a substantiated challenge on the main blog post...
I read ther original analyses. The data from NASA came from 1982 and 1987 papers by Hansen. Old versions disappear. They change monthly and yearly. The US cooled after McIntyre found the Millenium bug, but bounced back http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GISS_US_TEMPS.jpg
ReplyDeleteThe data from Hadley was downloaded in 2001, 2008, 2010. Old versions disappear.NOAA pulled out UHI to increase warming in US as the anomation shows. Hundreds of examples of how the homogenization is being misused are being asseembled by large groups. Your science has failed.
Warming is over - no warming for 15 years. No hot spot, no ocen heat content increase, sea level increasing at a rate oif 1.3 inches/century, I could list thrity other failures. Sorry, game set and match You all are losers
You are very confused. But, conspiracies and exaggerations aside, this thread is about how Milloy and D'Aleo fudged their graphics in their desperation to try and caste doubt on HadCRUT, and that Watts uncritically went ahead and posted their BS. None of the fake skeptics here has yet to a make substantiated and scientific challenge on the main blog post...
DeleteRegardless, let us try and address some of the bogus claims being made here by the fake skeptics to try and distract from that inconvenient truth.
"no ocen heat content increase"
Umm, no. See link below. And no, the oceans are not only 700 m deep as the fake skeptics seem to think.
[NODC 0-2000 m OHC]
"Warming is over - no warming for 15 years"
Wrong again. See links below.
[Going down the up escalator]
[NASA GISTEMP]
[Church et al. (2011)]
[The big picture]
The fake skeptics are here and elsewhere continue to make fools of themselves, especially when they try and trot out their alleged "thirty other failures".
The people coming here in defense of Milloy's post at WUWT have complained that the author of the OP misattributed the post to Anthony Watts (who only posted it). The other thing they have done is to point at other posts at WUWT, or introduced new topics.
ReplyDeleteNot one of them has dealt head on with the criticisms that demolish the woeful post itself.
Not one.
Because they cannot.
nice posting.. thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeletePlease stop saying "fake skeptics." You are doing your cause and science no favor by being sniveling partisans.
ReplyDelete