Science By Mindless Convulsion

Check out this rant on Deep DoDo Climate

But it turns out that Taylor’s source is none other than hapless climate blogger Steven Goddard, who recently leveled incoherent and unsupported false accusations against James Hansen and NASA’s Gistemp record, as well as NOAA.  Goddard also relies on the same reviled NOAA data in his botched attempt to buttress his case that NASA is “hiding” an 80 year cooling trend. Never mind that the U.S. “lower 48″ represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface area in any event, or that past attempts to show U.S. cooling have been proven utterly wrong.

But Tale is a PhD thesis compared to Goddard’s recent outings. The first link above points to a Goddard post exposing some supposed “corruption” of the NASA Gistemp temperature record by “Hansen et al”. Goddard posts a blinking graph purporting to show substantial post-hoc changes in the 20th century U.S. temperature data. But there are no explanations of which data sets are being compared, so there is no way to even tell if they are equivalent, or represent different stages of processing.

A little bit desperate are we? The blink comparator shows Hansen’s 1999 version of US temperatures and his current version of US temperatures. The hydrophobic nitwit who wrote the article is admitting that the warming trend is the result of “processing”-  but isn’t bright enough to realize that he just stepped in a big pile.

fig1x.gif (500×182)
Fig.D.gif (513×438)

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Science By Mindless Convulsion

  1. Dave N says:

    Say what? You’re using Hansens own graphs. Deep Morons, apparently

  2. Latitude says:

    LOL….you go!

  3. ddep climate and john mashey,…. gifts to skeptics

  4. gregole says:

    so there is no way to even tell if they are equivalent, or represent different stages of processing.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Isn’t that the point – that it appears Jim (Madman) Hansen has manipulated temperature data to produce an artificial, imagined warming trend; oh excuse me, the data has been subjected to “different stages of processing” to produce an .artificial, imagined, warming trend.

  5. kirkmyers says:

    Hansen is not only manipulating land-based temperature data via continual “adjustments” (dropping many 19th century temperatures and bumping up recent readings), but also failing to adjust for the urban heat island (UHI) effect. If he accounted for urban heating, temperatures in many areas would show a sharp decline.

    Isn’t it coincidental that GISS adjustments always result in an upward movement in temperatures, thereby confirming the CO2-is-heating-the-planet hypothesis?

    The AGW myth will long be remembered as the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. It needs to be given a decent burial before more billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.

  6. NoMoreGore says:

    The warm period of the 30s wasn’t present only in the lower 48. It was thru-out North America and The Arctic. I’ve also seen records set in Scandanavia and Russia in that period. Dr. Richard Keen had these numbers on Icecap a few years ago. But nitwits don need no steeenkeen data.

    And when you have such a large geographical area as I just described all communicating that high, you then must recognize these areas are surrounded by oceans for which we have nearly no information. Given the obvious connection between continental and ocean temps, are we to believe the oceans were exceptionally COOL in that period?

    So, in their story, a high pressure cell sat over the lower 48 for A DECADE?

    Here’s Keen’s post I was thinking of:

    Read it and weep, Oh Climate Komrades.

    • NoMoreGore says:

      Look also at this piece of con-artistry from NCAR

      Keen notes how they omitted the warmest part of the record to deceive with this chart, making some of these record highs NOT records at all when considered within the context of the entire data set….

      But as I recall, they also deceive by showing only a ratio of high to low, when in raw qty of incidents of highs, the trend was declining. Restated, the number of highs that comprise the last few bars is a much smaller number of incidents than the earlier bars. (That’s my recollection of the underlying data) I think WUWT had the whole report from NCAR.

      But by expressing this only as a ratio, it deceptively creates the impression of an increasing trend.

    • rw says:

      Here’s a quote from an oft-cited article by Willett (1950), p. 195:

      A number of papers in recent years have dealt with the rising trend of temperature which has been noted during the past 60 years, particularly during the latter half of that period. This rising trend has been most remarkable, and most remarked, at high latitudes in the eastern North Atlantic, but its effects have been noted in many parts of the world.

      Also (p. 198):

      The outstanding feature of the world trend of mean temperature during the past century (Fig. 1) is the pronounced warming which has occurred since 1885, amounting to 2.2o F in the mean winter temperature and 1.0o F in the annual mean temperature.

  7. That “deep” blogger is a bit of a loon.

  8. Chuckles says:

    Steve, Do you think that by ‘different stages of processing’ he means that one is the processing done in 1999, and the other the processing done in 2012?

    I gues that because we know what the answer is, we have to keep processing the data to accurately reflect that answer? Post hoc ergo propter hoc indeed.

  9. PaddikJ says:

    Shame on you, Steven. Didn’t your mama teach you it’s not nice to pick on mental quadraplegics?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s