The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

arctic sea iceWhen future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (76)

  • Avatar

    Drewski

    |

    Christopher Booker better be careful (and this goes for the rest of the pseudo journalists / anxiety specialists / pretend scientists, etc here at CCD).

    Liars are losing lawsuits.

    Dr Andrew Weaver has won his court case against the National Post. From the Judge:

    “Essentially, the allegations of the defamatory character of the words in the four articles can be summarized as the following innuendos or inferences that Dr. Weaver:
    (a) attempted to divert public attention from the IPCC and Climategate scandal by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office, theft of emails from a UK University, and hack attacks at the Centre;

    (b) engaged in deceptive misconduct in the news media to do so;

    (c) engaged in willful manipulation and distortion of scientific data for the purposes of deceiving the public in order to promote a public agenda;

    (d) in doing so, is motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding and financial rewards;

    (e) is wilfully concealing scientific climate data;

    (f) knows or believes the IPCC reports concerning global warming are unscientific and fraudulent and seeks to avoid personal accountability for the manipulation/distortion of those reports by disassociating himself from that organization;

    (g) has deceitfully or incompetently linked current weather and temperature events with global warming;

    (h) authored a deceitful and manipulative work of agitation propaganda known as The Copenhagen Diagnosis; and

    (i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.

    As of this writing, the National Post has not yet removed the offending articles from its website.”

    I wonder how much Steyn will have to pay Mann?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      I was looking for a good description for CCD – I just found it (from above):

      (i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Day

        |

        Nice to see you made it back drewski. Crazy stuff, a conservative group exhibiting, well, the exact opposite of common sense. Certainly haven’t seen that before.

        Somewhat on topic, in order to avoid actually enforcing their rules the administration here change the entire Terms Of Service for the site while you were gone. They didn’t want to do anything about their users violating the original ones every time they responded to you or I, so they pretty much admitted that they don’t care about rational discussion at all and just tossed their TOS out the window. Awesome right?

        As far as this article is concerned, it’s like the author thinks climate scientists aren’t aware of things like the urban heat effect. And apparently that something besides an increase in temperature has caused the Arctic ice cap to shrink tremendously. Which I think is a bit odd… It’s weird how skeptics go between “it’s not actually warming” and “it’s not the warming’s fault” and “it’s naturally warming” in such a seamless manner. It’s honestly like they expect no one to notice.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          Day,
          There has been some really bad verbiage used on this site and it does surprise me that it is allowed to go on. but then again, just look at the quality and language used in 99% of the articles.

          Just wait a few hous, Gator will ask (again!!!) for some paper “proving” that natural phenomenon isn’t responsible for what we are observing in nature (I guess he tacitly agrees that SOMETHING is going on), amerlach (One Trick) will post a graph about predictive climate modeling (he does that for EVERYTHING even for Mann’s paleo reconstructions hence the name One Trick), prestigio (SKOS for Special Kind Of Studpid — named by another) will post some really bad an unfathomable Japanese prose.
          PS don’t even try to respond to “me” — he makes even the wackiest people cringe.
          Cheers (Aussie lingo I picked up on my travels.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Day,
            There has been some really bad verbiage used on this site and it does surprise me that it is allowed to go on. but then again, just look at the quality and language used in 99% of the articles.
            [/quote] Yep! This from one of the worst offenders, our tame serial liar, apparatchik-ski.

            Only difference between you and us, is we don’t go whining to the admin when we can’t take what we dish out.

            Noticed you still never provided the proof you were not lying that Gator asked you for.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Jeez, Another lie.
            Are you making a graph of all the lies you tell One Trick?

            Gator has been given “proof” on a number of occasions, but he is too dense to know what all the scientific organizations know.

            Whose fault is that?

            Should I be blamed because I can’t give “proof” to a blind man that the color Red actually does exists? (Just to be perfectly clear here, Gator is the hypothetically blind person in this analogy).

            BTW, January 2015 was a stinker — I reckon February will have an even higher anomaly.

            Want to bet?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Gator has been given “proof” on a number of occasions, but he is too dense to know what all the scientific organizations know.[/quote]

            Did you catch that Day? Drewski lying and hurling insults. Nice hero. 😀

            [i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
            Gator has been given many and over many periods. He is just too dense too understand them. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
            Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Go on smart guy, do it! 😀

            Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀 Reply |

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
            Dementia it is. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.

            What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
            So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀

            Paper please!

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
            Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
            Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .

            You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . you are scrambling for a coherent thought. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again like a brain dead zombie. . .

            Remember now?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
            Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀

            Better yet, where is that paper?

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
            Gator,
            If you can’t figure out show laces, then let someone who does tie them for you.

            And if you can’t fathom a scientific study, then let a scientist explain it to you.

            Remember, its not your fault you have a learning disability.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
            Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.

            I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.

            Paper please! 😀

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
            Lying again Gator. What models?

            Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations .

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
            What paper? liar.

            You are a joke.

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
            As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
            Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

            Twelve insults directed at me, and not one paper to disprove NV or disprove Drewski’s serial lying.

            Day, you can do better than this. Your hero cannot disprove his blatant lies, and hurls insults instead.

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            Well, see, if you think every time someone calls you a liar that it’s an insult then you’re really stretching the idea of an “insult” to include pretty much every single comment on the site. I’ve tried to refrain from calling you all liars, although I did recently post a very pleasant explanation for how greenhouse gases work that was in sharp contrast to the usual misinformed explanations of it presented by those on the site. I suggest that before you start arguing about what could be construed as an insult you address that, as it undermines the whole “natural variation” approach that you seem very determined to defend, even when all evidence indicates otherwise.

            Now, I’ll be honest, I imagine you’ll ignore that detailed explanation and only respond to this comment. I’m calling it right now. Please, prove me wrong and address the explanations I have provided for how the greenhouse effect works.

            Oh, and when I say insult I was referring to you calling drewski “a lying bastard”. But it’s fine, the administration here has no desire to enforce rules so you can go ahead and keep doing that. It’s really okay, apparently they just don’t care at all! So lucky you guys!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Calling Drewski a liar is not an insult but an accurate description.

            Calling me liar is an insult.

            [i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
            Gator has been given many and over many periods. [b]He is just too dense too understand them[/b]. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
            Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Go on smart guy, do it! 😀

            Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀 Reply |

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
            [b]Dementia it is[/b]. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.

            What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
            So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀

            Paper please!

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
            Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
            Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .

            You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . [b]you are scrambling for a coherent thought[/b]. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again [b]like a brain dead zombie[/b]. . .

            Remember now?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
            Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀

            Better yet, where is that paper?

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
            Gator,
            [b]If you can’t figure out show laces,[/b] then let someone who does tie them for you.

            And if [b]you can’t fathom a scientific study[/b], then let a scientist explain it to you.

            Remember, its not your fault [b]you have a learning disability.
            [/b]
            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
            Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.

            I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.

            Paper please! 😀

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
            Lying again Gator. What models?

            [b]Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations .
            [/b]
            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
            What paper? liar.

            You are a joke.

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
            As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
            Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

            Drewski lied repeatedly about papers that do not exist.

            What part of this do you not understand.

            Go ahead and ask your hero to prove he is not a serial liar.

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            If I may ask then, please, provide us with your explanation of how greenhouse gases work. I believe I provided a rather thorough explanation (granted, JayPee immediately said that it was lying because it used too many big words he couldn’t understand), and I would love to see your response to it. Mind you, anything besides agreeing with the information I provided is lying, so I think you should watch yourself. Seeing as you consider being called a liar an insult, it would be just downright hypocritical to go and lie right after that, wouldn’t it?

            As for your argument with drewski, again, I don’t see why you continue to ignore the papers he provided (at one point, I’m sure). Your general approach is to look for the word “model” and then start citing how models from the seventies didn’t work. Or to lie and say that it is the models of today (you or someone else said this, and I think that it’s safe to say you support your compatriots’ statements), of right now, that are totally wrong. When you refuse to accept anything proposed by actual climate scientists then of course you’re going to adopt your stance. If you wish to live in a world where you are right and scientists are wrong then that is your choice, and in my opinion it is a very poor one.

            Again, I ask that you respond to my comment regarding greenhouse gases and how they work. I would enjoy an actual response to that. Or you could choose to ignore it, but that would be ignoring facts now, wouldn’t it? And we certainly don’t want that.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I have repeatedly responded to your inquiries and repeatedly explained that the relationship between CO2 and warming is not linear, but you just ignore this.

            Drewski is a liar, until he shows us otherwise.

            It is quite telling that you accept his lies without question.

            Gullible?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] I don’t see why you continue to ignore the papers he provided (at one point, I’m sure). [/quote] When the “papers” are based upon fiddled data and failed models they should be ignored.

            [quote]Your general approach is to look for the word “model” and then start citing how models from the seventies didn’t work. Or to lie and say that it is the models of today (you or someone else said this, and I think that it’s safe to say you support your compatriots’ statements), of right now, that are totally wrong. [/quote] You were shown proof that these FAILED Models are not from the 70’s. They are from 2013 onwards.
            You failed to provide any proof of your claim the models are from the 70’s, or that newer Models work better. You simply made that up. So either provide proof that the IPCC’s 73 Failed and refuted Models are from the 70’s, and prove there are newer ones that actually work. Or stop lying about it.
            [quote] Mind you, anything besides agreeing with the information I provided is lying, so I think you should watch yourself. Seeing as you consider being called a liar an insult, it would be just downright hypocritical to go and lie right after that, wouldn’t it?[/quote] Right!

            I am calling you a LIAR Day! So unless you can provide the proof I am asking you for regarding your false claims regarding these models kindly report yourself to the “admins” then pike off.
            [quote]Or to lie and say that it is the models of today (you or someone else said this, and I think that it’s safe to say you support your compatriots’ statements), of right now, that are totally wrong.[/quote] Your the one who is “totally wrong Day. And provably so.

            “John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.” http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]amerlach (One Trick) will post a graph about predictive climate modeling (he does that for EVERYTHING even for Mann’s paleo reconstructions hence the name One Trick) [/quote] I’m SO Offended by your unfounded allegations and Lies apparatchik-ski.
            Lets look at how that “One Tree” became central to your beloved “Multi Proxie” Re-fabrications of past temperatures.

            Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
            [quote]We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.[/quote]

            No wonder the NAS found Mann’s refuted Graph had Zero Credibility.
            [quote] The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [/quote]

            And the rest of them? Based upon the same faulty series? Garbage!

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Projecting again derwLIEski?

        So you “think” that Booker is going to be sued for reporting on the fact that cLIEmate UNscientists have been repeatedly fudging the numbers? 😀

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Day

          |

          It looks to me like he’s just reminding you that when people lie (and the denialists love doing this (case in point, Monckton or Morano)) when calling other people liars that sometimes there are consequences. I realize that that is no longer the case here thanks to the administration no longer bothering to enforce any rules, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t extend some simple courtesy to drew and I. I’ve told you before, it’s very off putting.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The “administration” is well aware of drewski’s lies. And that he is at least as offensive as anyone else here. Maybe you should report him too. 😀
            [quote]I was looking for a good description for CCD – I just found it (from above):

            (i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.[/quote]
            This from the same guy who tries to deny the fact that every single Co2 model has failed the scientific method, but you already know all this Day. As you yourself refuse to admit that every single IPCC Model has failed. I really found your lame attempt at claiming the models I linked you to were from the 70’s. 😀
            [quote]Again, you’re referring to and citing models that are in large part from the 1970s, which is clear given the starting point of the graph amirlach likes to toss around. I would think it would be much more beneficial to your argument if you could explain why the models of today are also wrong. Right?[/quote]

            Those are the “Models of Today” or at least 2013 when the graph was made.
            [quote]
            Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO2: Models are proven failures.

            This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

            John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
            [/quote]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

            You also failed to address the fact that every single warmist Co2 Model Predictions have failed the Scientific Method Day.
            [quote]I’m waiting with baited breath to see how Day overturns Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics and his crystal clear explanation of the Scientific Method.

            “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

            Will it be his usual long winded and utterly meaningless verbal effluence?

            How can Day Appeal to the Authority of Physics while ignoring THE Authority of Physics?[/quote]

            You also failed to address the glaring success of this model compared to the IPCC’s 73 models abysmal failures.
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/finally-a-climate-forecast-model-that-works/

            If calling a liar a liar is “off putting” to you, maybe you should stop doing it.

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          Fudging numbers.
          Proof?
          Just joking, I know that will never be seen on this website (or any other). You will just point me WUWT, which will point me to Steve Goddard, which will point me to the Unlord and on and on forever.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    When the fundamental question is ignored and presumed as self-evident, further speculation is not just faulty, it’s bogus.

    The fundamental question is the existence of the unwarrantedly presumed ” greenhouse effect .” This is continually ignored by the ” chicken little ” alarmists because they know it is unproven, unprovable and bogus. This is why they continually ignore it and presume it as self-evident because ” the science is settled ” and ” the debate is over ” when in fact they have no valid science on their side and there never was a debate because they declared themselves omniscient before there could be a debate.

    The fraud, arrogance and self-righteousness is appalling, but they’ll probably continue to get away with it because of the communist party usa ( democrats ) and the compliant lying main stream media.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Day

      |

      Sigh… How about I try this. Since none of you seem to accept the basis of the argument drewski and I have attempted to convey to you, how about I explain how infrared radiation (heat) is trapped by gases? And how some gases do it much more efficiently than others? I’ll give it a shot, maybe you’ll accept the real science, or maybe you’ll toss it out like you’ve been doing, I’m really not sure. It’s just very upsetting for me to see anyone actually arguing about whether the greenhouse effect is real or a mass conspiracy, when it’s a very observable and explainable phenomenon. Here we go:

      So, to start with, infrared radiation is pretty well understood. We actually use it (IR spectroscopy) to determine functional groups in organic molecules, although it is being somewhat displaced with the advancement of the generally more informative nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The way infrared radiation is absorbed by a molecule (trapped, in a sense) is when it hits the molecule and the molecule’s dipole moment changes. For example, carbon dioxide, which is a three atom linear molecule (O=C=O), can absorb infrared radiation that is reflected off the Earth’s surface through four types (two are degenerate though, so it would show three absorptions) of rotations and vibrations. Two types of bending, asymmetric, and symmetric. This can be shown here:

      http://www.d.umn.edu/~psiders/courses/chem4644/labinstructions/CO2CS2gamess.pdf

      The difference between carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs, water, other greenhouse gases, and the majority of the atmosphere (diatomic oxygen and nitrogen, and a bit of argon) is that the majority of the atmosphere is made of gases that do not and can not exhibit a change in their dipole moment (those three I just mentioned). That’s not to say they can’t absorb infrared radiation, it just means they’re much less efficient at it. For a practical demonstration of this, here are two videos. The first is an infrared camera being used to detect leaks and such around a house, and the second is the video I presented you with last time, to which I received replies that indicated to me that the general consensus here is that all gases act the same way carbon dioxide does. So here are those:

      Infrared Camera, Air – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJchBDfsGHU

      Infrared Camera, CO2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

      It should be very clear from these simple, practical demonstrations that adding carbon dioxide causes the absorption of an increased amount of infrared radiation, which would also cause that air to warm. This is what is known as the greenhouse effect.

      Now, I realize that there are some weird things here, like dipole moments, bending of molecular bonds, and such. I’m not asking everyone to understand what all that means. I’ve taken spectroscopy classes, and made frequent use of IR and NMR spectroscopy, and I made sure to really brush up on the topic before this explanation. To be clear, I’m attempting to convey that the greenhouse effect is real, and can be very clearly observed and explained. And it has been. I have now explained it here, so hopefully the “the greenhouse effect isn’t real because gases can’t trap heat” argument will cease to be relevant, as I certainly hope this has explained the reasoning behind how gases do in fact trap heat, and how some are much, much, much more efficient at it.

      This isn’t a politically motivated post, this isn’t me skewing science to serve my needs or beliefs. This is very established science. It isn’t a model, it isn’t anything that can be misconstrued as anything less than perfectly acceptable science. It’s literally used every single day, and there isn’t a single person who understands it who would argue with it. I cannot emphasize enough that this is incredibly established, unbiased, clean science. It is, essentially, quite settled. The idea that the chemistry behind how gases absorb or do not absorb infrared radiation is not understood is simply untrue, and I’m very sad that the idea seems to persist.

      Oh, and to be clear, Democrats generally are in favor of social programs and social safety nets. That’s not communism. Communism is an economic system where the masses own the means of production in a state. Comparing Democrats to communists is just rhetoric, and it’s hardly based on facts. However, I will say that this is NOT at all the point of this post. The point of this post is to explain how greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation far more efficiently than the gases that make up the majority of the atmosphere. I cannot emphasize enough how incorrect essentially your entire post is, and I ask that you become more informed on the chemistry behind infrared radiation absorption before you start calling everyone who you disagree with “frauds” and insist that they know nothing, as they are actually incredibly well informed on the subject in question.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Useless verbiage to the nth degree. You cannot prove there is a greenhouse effect because there is none . Your volume of verbiage betrays your discourse.

        If there actually is a greenhouse effect, you and your minion would obviously be able to demonstrate it quite succinctly,

        AND YOU CAN’T.

        Because THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          JayPee,
          Why does the Institute of Atmospheric Physics say there is a greenhouse effect? In fact, they even quantify it.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You either grasp what I have just said or not. Obviously, you don’t. Your attempts to sidetrack the question are precisely that.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            You say that Greenhouse Gases don’t exist because our minions have not been able to demonstrate they exist.

            I say that the Institute of Atmospheric Physics say they DO EXIST and they even quantify them.

            You say I am attempting to sidetrack the question.

            I say you have the comprehension ability of an alcoholic during rehab.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’ll listen if and when you’re able to cite proof.
            Btw, your so-called authority can’t cite any either.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So why can’t warmists make any Skillfull Predictions based upon this “quantified” observation?

        • Avatar

          Day

          |

          I provided you with the molecular reason that certain gases absorb infrared far more efficiently (in other words, trap heat more efficiently) than other gases. If you choose to ignore the extremely settled science behind integrated radiation absorption then I don’t believe your opinion about it is relevant. The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t care what anyone’s opinion is. It’s true whether you choose to accept it or not.

          I’m very disappointed in your understanding of infrared. I had hoped that the practical videos might help explain it, but I see you are determine to ignore the reality of the greenhouse effect. I will here on out be ignoring anything you have to say regarding the subject, as you clearly have no desire to further your knowledge of it or accept the work that others have done. I will repeat myself, this is extremely settled science. This is not model based, it is chemically based and has been proven a thousand times over. I am very disappointed that you have chosen to ignore reality, and until you do, I shall ignore you.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            “behind infrared radiation absorption”

            I apologize for my autocorrect incorrectly correcting that statement.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I provided you with the molecular reason that certain gases absorb infrared far more efficiently (in other words, trap heat more efficiently) than other gases. If you choose to ignore the extremely settled science behind integrated radiation absorption then I don’t believe your opinion about it is relevant. The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t care what anyone’s opinion is. It’s true whether you choose to accept it or not.[/quote] Then why are you in Denial of the fact that EVERY SINGLE Model has been INVALIDATED by observation?

            Scientific Method 101. “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

            The Models based upon your ” extremely settled science behind integrated radiation absorption”, are WRONG!

            The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t care what YOUR opinion is Day. It’s true whether you choose to accept it or not.

            So tell me why are you in denial od the “Scientific Method” Day?

            Your Pure Projection is showing in this Whopper of a statement.
            [quote] I will repeat myself, this is extremely settled science. This is not model based, it is chemically based and has been proven a thousand times over. I am very disappointed that you have chosen to ignore reality, and until you do, I shall ignore you.[/quote] And the models are still wrong… And your still in denial of that fact… Incredible.

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            The models that were created in the 1970s predicted more warming than has occurred, because scientists then thought that climate sensitivity was higher. I’m surprised you continue to try to argue about that. Neither drew or I have claimed any such thing, and I personally am merely attempting to convey how greenhouse gases work. I think it should be fairly clear at this point that the greenhouse effect, regardless of what you want, is what is observed in reality, and it can indeed be quantified through the use of math and physics.

            Your last sentence is both grammatically incorrect and contextually irrelevant. I am discussing the greenhouse effect, and you are unable to move past 1970 when models are concerned. I have asked you before to explain why we are still unable to create decent models, and you have ignored me only to hop back to your graph that starts in 1970. Please, we are 45 years past that, update your argument.

            Oh, and to be clear, it was the models that were not correct. That doesn’t change the fact that greenhouse gases are called that for a reason, and that warming was still observed over the past 50 years. I don’t understand why you continually try to ignore every other piece of evidence in favor of your graph involving models.

            The greenhouse effect is real, it is very much understood, and even if models overshot the reality it does not undermine the evidence for GW that should be very apparent to anyone who understands how infrared radiation is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The models that were created in the 1970s predicted more warming than has occurred, because scientists then thought that climate sensitivity was higher. I’m surprised you continue to try to argue about that.[/quote] Complete and utter BS! Why are you STILL repeating this LIE Day?

            The models I cited are from 2013.
            [quote]his beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

            John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
            [/quote]

            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The greenhouse effect is real, it is very much understood, and even if models overshot the reality it does not undermine the evidence for GW that should be very apparent to anyone who understands how infrared radiation is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere.[/quote] If it’s so well understood the Models should not be “overshooting” reality.

            Please provide a single “Modern” Model that has skillfully predicted recent climate.

            I have shown you 73 that cannot.
            [quote]Oh, and to be clear, it was the models that were not correct. That doesn’t change the fact that greenhouse gases are called that for a reason, and that warming was still observed over the past 50 years. I don’t understand why you continually try to ignore every other piece of evidence in favor of your graph involving models.[/quote] Why do you continually try to ignore the Scientific Method? “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong!

            Now you “admit” that the models were indeed “incorrect”?

            Now all you need to do is “admit” your wrong about the 2013 models being from the 70’s! :-*

            If it has warmed over the last 50 years how can one prove it was due to Co2 if every single model based upon this Co2 warming hypothesis is wrong?

            Correlation does not prove causation. Especially when alarmists have doctored the Solar Data.

            [quote]At the moment, the space climate is undergoing an extremely interesting phase. Now a 100-year period of heightened solar activity is coming to an end. The reason behind the fluctuation in solar activity is not yet known. One hypothesis is that these long solar cycles are caused by the gravity forces of the planets in the solar system. However, the current knowledge does not support this hypothesis. –Juha Merimaa[/quote]

            Paper demonstrates solar activity was at a grand maximum in the late 20th century.
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image6.png[/img]
            Figure 17: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.

            Or. It’s the Sun Stupid!
            [img]http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/globalwarmingpseudo32_01.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Quoting Amirlach:

            [quote]You were shown proof that these FAILED Models are not from the 70’s. They are from 2013 onwards. You failed to provide any proof of your claim the models are from the 70’s, or that newer Models work better. You simply made that up. So either provide proof that the IPCC’s 73 Failed and refuted Models are from the 70’s, and prove there are newer ones that actually work. Or stop lying about it.[/quote]

            CO2 does not have a linear relationship with warming. Even the IPCC admits this.

            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png?w=720

            Can you guess what is used to increase temperatures in all the failed models? Amirlach has told you already. Did you not read his comments?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Can we throw him a Bone Gator?

            There’s a cooling effect that is 16 times stronger than his precious Co2 warming effect.

            He still cannot admit he was wrong about his models from the 70’s claim.

            His other claim that even though the Models are WRONG, the theory is still correct… LOL… That the Co2 WATER VAPOR positive feedback theory is also refuted still escapes him. [quote] The greenhouse effect is real, it is very much understood, and even if models overshot the reality it does not undermine the evidence for GW that should be very apparent to anyone who understands how infrared radiation is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere.[/quote]

            Instead of increasing as “predicted”, water vapor( the MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS) has in fact decreased over the warming period. Another refuted hypothesis.
            [quote]An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that WATER VAPOR, the MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.[/quote] OOPS! 😀

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

            [img]http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I provided you with the molecular reason that certain gases absorb infrared far more efficiently (in other words, trap heat more efficiently) than other gases. [/quote] Except water vapor, which you ignore, also you ignored the fact that the decline in water vapor has offset the Co2 warming by 15 times over.
            [quote]The heat is missing from the oceans, the trends are not accelerating in sea levels, ocean heat, global temperatures, and their 1990 predictions have failed abysmally. The radiosondes show that the humidity is not rising in the upper troposphere, as well as the temperatures. The models are “right” except for for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else. The cloud feedback mistakes are 19 times larger than the effect of CO2. (See Man Made Global Warming Disproved).

            Some of these data points make sense if the IPCC models wildly exaggerate the way humidity warms the world. The modelers could change one factor in their models and quite a few of their predictions would fit much closer to the observations.

            But instead they deny the importance of 28 million weather-balloons, call the missing heat a “travesty”, they pretend that if you slap enough caveats on the 1990 report and ignore the actual direct quotes they made at the time, then possibly, just maybe, their models are doing OK, and through sheer bad luck 3000 ocean buoys, millions of weather balloons, and 30 years of satellite records are all biased in ways that hides the true genius of the climate models. [/quote]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/

            As for your satellites measuring radiation…
            [quote]The CERES dataset is satellite data that is based on radiation measurements made from low earth orbit. The CERES data has two parts. The first part is observational data, measurements of downwelling and upwelling solar radiation and of upwelling longwave radiation. [/quote] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/the-tao-calculated-surface-datasets/

            Your “extremely settled science” regarding Co2 and infrared only comes up with at best a 1.2C climate sensitivity. The rest of your positive feedback nonsense has been addressed. It all was refuted by observations.

            And as for your “practical videos”, one shows an exothermic reaction, where you can see the temperature was already warmer when he pushed the rubber stopper into the pop bottle.

            The other was a guy pumping cold gas into a chamber, which became colder. :zzz I see you do not understand what your looking at.

            You completely ignored a far more comprehensive and well documented test simply because it did not fit your confirmation bias.

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]Sigh… How about I try this. Since none of you seem to accept the basis of the argument drewski and I have attempted to convey to you, how about I explain how infrared radiation (heat) is trapped by gases?[/quote] All of this is irrelevant! Co2’s ability to “Trap Heat” all on it’s own, as you put it is not ever going to cause alarming warming. This is why the alarmists invented the Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback hypothesis.

        All of the Models were programed with it. Trouble is Empirical Observations refuted the “positive feedback” hypothesis”.
        On the left we see what the Models “predicted” and on the right what was measured and observed. ” If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
        [img]http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hot-spot-vs-observations-650.jpg[/img]

        And we are back to the simple fact that when tested the Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback programed into the failed models fail the “Scientific Method”.
        [quote]In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.[/quote]

        And I see your still claiming your Youtube is “Proof” of Co2 Warming. All I see is a chamber being filled with a cold gas getting colder. :zzz

        What do experts in Infrared Heating say?
        [quote]Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, (the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible) and gets absorbed or reflected by objects it strikes. Any object with a surface temperature above absolute zero, – 460 ° F ( -273 °C) will emit infrared radiation. The temperature of the object as well as its physical properties will dictate the radiant efficiency and wavelengths emitted. Infrared radiation can be compared to radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet, microwaves, and x-rays. They are all electromagnetic waves that travel through space at the speed of light. The difference between them is the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. Infrared radiation is measured in microns (mm) and starts at .70 mm and extends to 1000 mm. Although the useful range of wavelengths for infrared heating applications occurs between .70 mm to 10 mm. For more information see our Technical Manual page about the Infrared Part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.[/quote]
        http://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]The first is an infrared camera being used to detect leaks and such around a house, and the second is the video I presented you with last time, to which I received replies that indicated to me that the general consensus here is that all gases act the same way carbon dioxide does.[/quote] Yes and you completely missed the point of it. I showed you an independent attempt to verify Al Gore and Bill Nye’s so called “experiment” you ran away from.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

        It’s a lot better, much less misleading and far more detailed than you movie showing some guy pumping cold gas in front of an infrared camera and claiming it’s proof of AGW. 😀

        And what happened to your movie of the guy dropping exothermic reaction causing antacid tabs into the bottle heating it up, then claiming the heat caused by the chemical reaction was “proof” of AGW? 😀

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Drewski’s reaction is not surprising at all .

    When you believe in something and try to sell those beliefs the last thing you want is information that doesn’t support your pitch .

    More information is required but if this “adjustment ” of temperature data occurred it won’t be too difficult to figure out who did it and who gave the orders to do it .

    The Climate Gate E mails illustrate what a few like minded can do .

    Usually those that protest the loudest have the most smoke coming out their gun .

    Motive …$Trillions of dollars and fame, the kind that draws failed politicians and Hollywood flakes .

    The telegraph got it right ..”one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time “.

    Not so great for those that froze or starved as a result of policies promoted by the scam .

    Some people are going to wear this . this

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      Those Climategate emails have been the subject of at least 6 scientific inquiries and at least 2 newspaper inquiries.

      To sum it up, no fraud, no fudging but a lot of mental gymnastics by deniers.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]Those Climategate emails have been the subject of at least 6 scientific inquiries and at least 2 newspaper inquiries.[/quote]

        Having your Co-Authors, Green Energy tycoon’s and fellow Climate Gate Pen Pals “Investigate” them selves is sure “convincing”. 😀 selveshttp://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Whether Climate Gate shows an attempt to manipulate data to arrive at a predetermined outcome or not, it is evident how few people were actually involved.
    Scientists pursue all kinds of hypothesis and as tough as it may be to have their work reviewed some of those Emails do not inspire confidence.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      In some branches of Science having one’s hypothesis tested and refuted are not considered “tough”.

      I recall watching a show on the LHC Super Collider and how it was expected to overturn several long standing “theory’s”.

      One scientist seemed positively giddy with the idea that his theory, which had withstood many attempts by others to refute it might finally fall.

      These guys can and very often have heated debates and spend years trying to overturn each others theory’s.

      One thing they simply would never tolerate is manipulation of data results, or someone trying to claim an invalidated model is proof of anything.

      These guy’s have been going at it for decades.
      http://motls.blogspot.ca/2007/11/stephen-hawking-vs-leonard-susskind.html

      The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        [quote]or someone trying to claim an invalidated model is proof of anything.[/quote]

        It is proof of one thing, that the assumption of the modeler(s) was wrong.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Have we ever heard of one theoretical physicist having to file a FOIA request to access another’s data and methods?
          [quote]Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003

          Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike
          p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
          [/quote] Kinda makes this claim of apparachik-ski even funnier.
          [quote]Those Climategate emails have been the subject of at least 6 scientific inquiries and at least 2 newspaper inquiries.

          To sum it up, no fraud, no fudging but a lot of mental gymnastics by deniers.[/quote]

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Maybe Day-ski can explain why those models he falsely claimed were from the 70’s, which run on Billion Dollar Co2 belching super computers were WTFPAWNED by these simple Co2 Free models? 😀
            [quote]Simple Climate Model Continues To Embarrass “Experts” and The IPCC’s Billion-Dollar Computer Climate Simulations.[/quote]
            [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0191048f4363970c-pi[/img]

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-embarrass-experts-ipcc-billion-dollar-computer-climate-simulation.html

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Amirlach
            I agree with everything you say. But, face it.
            We’re in colloquy with the sub-intelligent.
            Why bother ?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            According to JayPeeing,
            The sub intelligent include EVERY major scientific authority on the planet along with Rio Tinto, the US Navy, Exxon, etc, etc and so on.

            Whereas, the sCeptic Illuminati include a tv meteorologist with no degree, a man who refuses to use his real name and publish in a peer-reviewed journal, an expert who is shunned by his former organization, another expert who got his degrees from an online diploma mill, an anxiety expert, the Unlord and scores of journalists who have never conducted a scientific study.

            Kind of says it all, don’t it?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yet not one of them can find that paper! Or make a skillful prediction with those Billion Dollar computer models. 😀

            If all those guy’s duuhh-rooski say’s are so unqualified, why can’t our Tame Serial Liar ever prove it? 😥

            Kind of says it all, don’t it?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Gator has been given multiple papers at multiple times which, apparently, he doesn’t believe (these were part of the great climate hoax don’t you know?). I have also told him — on multiple occasions — that this would be my last batch as he was incapable of understanding the previous sets of papers. This “last batch” was also given to him on multiple occasions, as well.

            No more.

            Now Gator is lying (favorite catch phrase of the ignorati) about what was contained in these papers, he also seems to forget that these multiple papers led to multiple discussions of what “proof” is and that it ultimately comes down to the bias or capability of the person doing the reading.

            Apparently, Gator fancies himself as having more understanding, less bias, and more qualifications than ALL of the world’s major scientific organizations. He probably also fancies himself as a man’s man (if you know what I mean).

            Like I said before, explaining climate to a sCeptic is like teaching a double amputee table manners.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            BTW, have you guys noticed that almost every other article published here on this “esteemed” website comes from D. Benny – “I’m not a climate scientist and have never claimed to be one” – Peiser?

            I will admit he has more “climate” qualifications than most of the usual fare you get around here – a past senior lecturer in Social Anthropology and Sport Sociology.

            CCD sure knows how to pick ‘em.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            BTW, have you guys noticed that every article published by the Branch Carbonians is supported by invalidated Models and Fiddled Data?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            One Trick thinks that climate science is based on model prediction — it isn’t. All Earth sciences are based on OBSERVATIONS (for example each decade is warmer than the last). He has been told this numerous times and yet he repeats himself.

            He made the same mistake over and over and over when trying to make a point about PAST paleo-reconstructions as well saying that FUTURE model predictions invalidated them (?!?)

            Brain damaged from too much benzene sniffing methinks.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Observations prove there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.

            Only models and fudged data say otherwise.

            Of course, you could always post your imaginary papers and prove me wrong.

            Oh that’s right, [u][i][b]you can’t![/b][/i][/u] 😀 😀 😀

            This thread will be saved for all time, to show everyone what a lying POS Drewski is. 😉

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]One Trick thinks that climate science is based on model prediction — it isn’t. All Earth sciences are based on OBSERVATIONS (for example each decade is warmer than the last). [/quote] Anecdotal evidence even if it was true. It is not. Alarmists have “adjusted” the OBSERVATIONS to fit un-validated model results. The observations in no way support the invalidated AGW “hypothesis”.

            [quote]He made the same mistake over and over and over when trying to make a point about PAST paleo-reconstructions as well saying that FUTURE model predictions invalidated them (?!?)[/quote] No! Comrade duuhh-rooski they have all been refuted by actual un-adjusted empirical observations, recorded history and archeological evidence.

            Like the forests that melted out of glaciers or those Vikings who grew barley in Greenland you refuse to address.

            I have already proven that your so called “past reconstructions” relied upon computer programs designed to give weight to the data that supported the false claims, while deleting the data that did not. So stop LYING.

            And that these refuted 12 treering paleo re-fabrications have zero statistical skill. The NAS confirms that.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Amirlach, we can all agree that Drewski is a serial liar. There is absolutely [i]no[/i] reason to ever believe a thing he has to say. Drewski has wasted enormous amounts of time and [i]every bit[/i] of his already thin credibility by hurling insults in place of the papers he falsely claims to possess.

            Instead of spending weeks name calling, and typing like a liTTle g!rl, he could have simply shown the papers or referred us to a thread where he has done so in the past.

            But he can’t.

            Because?

            Drewski is a liar.

            Drewski has no problem repeating himself ad nauseam on many other topics, but not on [u][i][b]THE ONE TOPIC THAT COULD PROVE HE IS NOT A LIAR.[/b][/i][/u]

            And like an idiot he keeps digging! 😀 😀 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Then why can’t alarmists provide any “observations” that support them?

            When asked to present their “observation based science” LOL… Alarmists failed pathetically.
            [quote]From the report one gets the impression that PIK puts a lot faith in climate models and is suspicious observations that do not conform to their models. In real science one ought to be suspicious of models that do not conform to real-life observations. Michael Limburg also added in his e-mail:

            The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “

            That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?
            [/quote] What were you Lying duuhh-rooski?
            – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/#sthash.CjjJqW87.dpuf

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Your last “batch” was a hodge podge of papers that said “buh buh… our Models” say”… Yet not one single alarmist model has ever been validated…

            You only have to Produce ONE Comrade. Then you can shut up both Gator and Roy Spencer both. Just one little link! Come on, we know you want to.
            😀

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            I have produced many papers. It is in the logical INTERPRETATION that sCeptics lack.

            Good thing we have so many scientists from so many places to steer us away from the pull of the black hole of ignorance (otherwise known as the Sceptic knowledge base).

            BTW, still sticking to the absurd assertion that all the more-recent paleo reconstructions relied on only one tree sample?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [u][i][b]Bullcrap liar![/b][/i][/u]

            [i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
            Gator has been given many and over many periods. He is just too dense too understand them. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
            Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Go on smart guy, do it! 😀

            Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀 Reply |

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
            Dementia it is. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.

            What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
            So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀

            Paper please!

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
            Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
            Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .

            You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . you are scrambling for a coherent thought. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again like a brain dead zombie. . .

            Remember now?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
            Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀

            Better yet, where is that paper?

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
            Gator,
            If you can’t figure out show laces, then let someone who does tie them for you.

            And if you can’t fathom a scientific study, then let a scientist explain it to you.

            Remember, its not your fault you have a learning disability.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
            Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.

            I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.

            Paper please! 😀

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
            Lying again Gator. What models?

            Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations .

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
            What paper? liar.

            You are a joke.

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
            As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
            Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            In the glossary of sCeptic terms liar means factual; unqualified means wise; fake means expert; scientific means corrupt, and IPCC means hoax.

            In the real world, Gator means desperate and / or babbling.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What a lying POs you are. 😀 😀 😀

            And you are only fooling yourself, everyone else knows that the emperor has no clothes.

            Instead of weeks of back and forth, where you are [u][i]proven to be a bigger liar with each of your posts[/i][/u], all you had to do was cut and paste your ‘proof’ that I am wrong and you are not the enormous liar that we all know that you are.

            But you cannot, because you are a lying POS. Period.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]BTW, still sticking to the absurd assertion that all the more-recent paleo reconstructions relied on only one tree sample?[/quote] The evidence says your a bald faced liar… So yes. 😀 You could prove us wrong, all you have to do is pull those papers outa your arse. Real papers mind you, not like the fake one you tried to pass off as evidence it is warmer today than it was for the last 1500 years. Fake papers will not be accepted. [quote]Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.[/quote]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Here we see why all those “paleo reconstructions” duu-rooski keeps harping on about use those same 12 trees.
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure11.png[/img]

            If the data don’t fit! You must omit!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Drewski is the biggest liar I have ever come across in my life, and once again, here is the proof…

            [i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
            Gator has been given many and over many periods. He is just too dense too understand them. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
            Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Go on smart guy, do it! 😀

            Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀 Reply |

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
            Dementia it is. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.

            What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
            So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀

            Paper please!

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
            Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
            Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .

            You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . you are scrambling for a coherent thought. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again like a brain dead zombie. . .

            Remember now?

            # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
            Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀

            Better yet, where is that paper?

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
            Gator,
            If you can’t figure out show laces, then let someone who does tie them for you.

            And if you can’t fathom a scientific study, then let a scientist explain it to you.

            Remember, its not your fault you have a learning disability.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
            Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.

            I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.

            Paper please! 😀

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
            Lying again Gator. What models?

            Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations .

            # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
            What paper? liar.

            You are a joke.

            # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
            As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

            # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
            Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            I told you again and again that the last time was the last time. I gave in to your pleading (just as you are doing now) and you ignored the new batch of papers.

            They are in the internet ether, Time for dousing.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What a lying POs you are. 😀 😀 😀

            And you are only fooling yourself, everyone else knows that the emperor has no clothes.

            Instead of weeks of back and forth, where you are [u][i]proven to be a bigger liar with each of your posts[/i][/u], all you had to do was cut and paste your ‘proof’ that I am wrong and you are not the enormous liar that we all know that you are.

            But you [u][i]are[/i][/u] a liar and cannot.

            Or just point me to the thread where you falsely claim to have posted those papers.

            But you cannot, because you [u][i]are[/i][/u] a lying POS. Period.

            Keep digging Pinocchio! 😀 😀 😀

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Definition in “sCeptic-ese”: liar = factual.
            Definition in English: Gator = bababababbling.

            Got it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Got it.[/quote]

            If you had it, you would show it. 😀

            Thanks for reaffirming your liar status, and proving me right once again.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            I have shown you a number of papers a number of times and I said no more a number of times as you well know.

            You asked for “just one paper” which I produced in spades and still you repeat the same request like a mindless pull-string doll. I said I wouldn’t do it again and I won’t.

            There is a dozen or more papers “out there” that I have presented to you. Now be a good reptile and fetch.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i][b]Liar! [/b][/i] 😀 😀 😀

            You could have shut me down weeks ago, if you had the papers you have lied about for years now.

            You are the most childish person I have ever met.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Shut you down?

            sCeptics are like food poisoning — their restaurants keep re-opening with the same unqualified cooks and customers continue feeling sick to their stomach no matter how many times the health authorities close them down.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Don’t you worry Champ! Just think about baseball and you will forget about your performance anxiety. :-*

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            This is what alarmists call settled science! 😀

            Yet another childish post from the liar who cannot help himself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/RydUgpNreOI/AAAAAAAAAGs/WDvG-fRnvXw/s400/Consensus.jpg[/img]

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.