25 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

BTW, that WoodforTrees site is very good. You can look at all the various temperature records and compare.

[maineman]

From ye old stinkpot of misinformation: The Sunday New York Times:


<h1 class="articleHeadline">Our Beaker Is Starting to Boil</h1>Read Here

[OEXCHAOS]

As I've stated, the better data (not NASA's which sucks big wind and has proven to be unreliable and upwardly biased), does not agree. Look at the satellite.

As for the Times, they're not a reliable source of unbiased news any longer. They're quoting Joe Romm from Chrissakes!

You do grasp the difference between propaganda and legitimate analysis (or science for that matter), Right?

I mean, I'm going to keep calling 'me what they are every time.

Meanwhile, take a look at the real time sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic) links and see how little ice out we've seen in places.

http://wattsupwithth...m/sea-ice-page/

M

[OEXCHAOS]

From ye old stinkpot of misinformation: The Sunday New York Times:


<h1 class="articleHeadline">Our Beaker Is Starting to Boil</h1>Read Here

BTW, why always liberal-spin analysis instead of primary sources or primary analysis?

I mean the NYT lost most credibility some time ago with me on anything political--and climate change is now political, with ample attempts to con folks into supporting cap-and-trade. So, why waste our time? Why waste yours? Why not do some real research so you can speak with some authority or at least question my position more insightfully?

[maineman]

The NY TImes is not "liberal spin". I've been reading it all my life. Its probably the best source of news and information available. The idea that it has "lost credibility" is a tea-party, Fox-type construct and is simply not true. mm

[salsabob]

Man, I really do respect both of your works in market TA, but your posts on climate change are really, really bad.

First the link to the sat chart that starts in '98 - the warmest year on record due to the biggest el Nino on record. This has been the trick used by non-believers for the last 12 years, e.g. the thread here about the "coolest decade on record." Here is the same link but with an initial date of 1978 which was the beginning of the sat data -

http://www.woodfortr...t/uah/from:1978

It would be hard for anyone, let alone those on this forum familiar with trends, to not clearly see the upward slope of this trend. And even harder to believe would be, even not knowing the unusual el Nino condition in 1998, that any one vaguely familiar with trend analysis would come up with something as silly as the '98 peak proving a cooling off since then. And finally, discounting the warming in 2010 (with its relatively very weak el Nino) since it did not exceed the hotest year on record (1998) is getting to be nearly 3 Stooges' slapstick.

Given that this has been all pointed out ad nauseum in countless articles and blogs, and specifically discussed on this forum by at least me with you both, perhaps it's something more than just silliness going on here - perhaps something akin to willful blindness? That possible conclusion is reinforced by the addition of your 'brilliant' forecast that things are soon going to get a bit cooler - well, no shirt Sherlock with the el Nino projected to dissappate, nobody is suggesting it won't get cooler - the question will be by how much and for how long? Will it get as cool as 99/00 following the last el Nino? If it doesn't, then that would be confirming of the uptrend - you know, lower lows??? A little more nuanced than what your projection implies, no?.

Then the reference to Marc Morano as a counter to the government and NOAA. Morano is not a trained climatologist, he is not a trained scientist in any field. He is a professional spin doctor that worked for Senator Inhofe on the Public Works Committee to develop catchy phrases for Idiot America (i.e. the ones that think Sean Hannity knows something about climate change or, well, anything at all really).
http://www.desmogblo...r-guest-debater

http://www.esquire.c...arc-morano-0410

So, let's see, we need to believe that GS-14 government scientists at NOAA are conspiraring to take over the world because some shill who is looking for spin doctoring work (since being fired because even the Inhofe couldn't take his swiftboating approach any more) says so??? Really?

Then the cherry on this banana split Sunday -

why always liberal-spin analysis instead of primary sources or primary analysis?

Man, oh, man! That is something. Maybe this will help -
http://en.wikipedia....ical_projection

As I said, you both obviously have really really good market TA; but this ah, ah, 'stuff' you guys post on climate change .... yeesh!

[OEXCHAOS]

The NY TImes is not "liberal spin". I've been reading it all my life. Its probably the best source of news and information available. The idea that it has "lost credibility" is a tea-party, Fox-type construct and is simply not true.

mm

You're kidding, right?

[maineman]

No I am not kidding. Wake up. I've been reading it since I can remember. It was always at the house. I'm a doctor, highly respected. top college, top medical school, top residency. Brother read it. Went to Harvard. Successful publishing entrepeneur. His daughter read it. She's at Harvard. My brother in law reads it. Top hydrogen energy physicist in the world. My cousin reads it. Works in Oxford, England at the Climate institiute. My nephew reads it every day. He's part way through residency in Internal Medicine. My kids read it every day. My eldest is classicist, recently finished Masters Program and getting phd in Linguistics. My second son read it and is composing music professionally and has had his pieces performed by major US Symphony orchestra. He still reads it. For a major news organization it doesn't get much better. "Liberal Bias" is one of those tea party, Fox News, Rove-era throw away phrases that is used by "the other side?" (for lack a clearer term) to justify sloganeering and this-information. Wake up.

[OEXCHAOS]

Salsa,

Um, you're changing the subject. See the title of this post? "WARMEST JUNE ON RECORD".

Not "The Temperature Trend Is Up".

We can debate the latter, and depending on time frame and analysis style up or down can be perfectly legitimate, assuming that you've got good data. But that's not what we're talking about, here.

I selected 98 because that was the warmest in the satellite record. We're cooler than that now. Even Warmists admit that there is not up trend since then or thereabouts. The general decline in temperature since 1978 is contextual counter evidence for the poorly supported claim of the "Warmest June On Record". And not a disproof in and of itself, I might add. Just contextual evidence.

I don't claim a meaningful downtrend in the data, only that we're not making new highs, contrary to politically motivated alarmist claims. From my angle, looking at the RSS satellite data, I'd say we've broken up the up trend, but we don't have any clear direction established. "Too soon to short" if you will.

http://www.woodfortr...2/to:1999/trend

So, your post looks a lot like a "straw man" exercise. It's made much less by the assertions of psychological disorder, which seems to be the latest fad on alarmists sites. Perhaps you could just stick to the facts?

BTW, I resent your implication that I was playing games with the data. I gave the link and advised folks to play with it. All the data is there and you can look at it any way that you like. I wasn't playing fast and loose with it, but urging you to do your own research.

NOAA is funded with tax dollars, is it not? Do they benefit from panic and alarmist claims of "record warming" or not?

Just asking.

And, I might add, if this is such an alarming situation and NOAA is so good at what they do, how come 80%-90% of their temperature stations are non-compliant with their own standards?

It's as though they might WANT the most alarming data possible. It's as if greater funding and authority and (dare I say it?) power might flow from governmental action to "do something" about "climate change".

As if.

So, sheeze back at you.

(and thank you for your kind words about my other, paying, work)

M

Man, I really do respect both of your works in market TA, but your posts on climate change are really, really bad.

First the link to the sat chart that starts in '98 - the warmest year on record due to the biggest el Nino on record. This has been the trick used by non-believers for the last 12 years, e.g. the thread here about the "coolest decade on record." Here is the same link but with an initial date of 1978 which was the beginning of the sat data -

http://www.woodfortr...t/uah/from:1978

It would be hard for anyone, let alone those on this forum familiar with trends, to not clearly see the upward slope of this trend. And even harder to believe would be, even not knowing the unusual el Nino condition in 1998, that any one vaguely familiar with trend analysis would come up with something as silly as the '98 peak proving a cooling off since then. And finally, discounting the warming in 2010 (with its relatively very weak el Nino) since it did not exceed the hotest year on record (1998) is getting to be nearly 3 Stooges' slapstick.

Given that this has been all pointed out ad nauseum in countless articles and blogs, and specifically discussed on this forum by at least me with you both, perhaps it's something more than just silliness going on here - perhaps something akin to willful blindness? That possible conclusion is reinforced by the addition of your 'brilliant' forecast that things are soon going to get a bit cooler - well, no shirt Sherlock with the el Nino projected to dissappate, nobody is suggesting it won't get cooler - the question will be by how much and for how long? Will it get as cool as 99/00 following the last el Nino? If it doesn't, then that would be confirming of the uptrend - you know, lower lows??? A little more nuanced than what your projection implies, no?.

Then the reference to Marc Morano as a counter to the government and NOAA. Morano is not a trained climatologist, he is not a trained scientist in any field. He is a professional spin doctor that worked for Senator Inhofe on the Public Works Committee to develop catchy phrases for Idiot America (i.e. the ones that think Sean Hannity knows something about climate change or, well, anything at all really).
http://www.desmogblo...r-guest-debater

http://www.esquire.c...arc-morano-0410

So, let's see, we need to believe that GS-14 government scientists at NOAA are conspiraring to take over the world because some shill who is looking for spin doctoring work (since being fired because even the Inhofe couldn't take his swiftboating approach any more) says so??? Really?

Then the cherry on this banana split Sunday -

why always liberal-spin analysis instead of primary sources or primary analysis?

Man, oh, man! That is something. Maybe this will help -
http://en.wikipedia....ical_projection

As I said, you both obviously have really really good market TA; but this ah, ah, 'stuff' you guys post on climate change .... yeesh!

[maineman]

NOAA is funded with tax dollars, is it not? Do they benefit from panic and alarmist claims of "record warming" or not?
no
as are my highways and they don't really alarm or panic me either.