No Debate Permitted Here

Anthony Watts made a post which alarmists see as critical of me. Normally, they bash Anthony and myself, but now they say that they have proof that I am both evil and stupid, and that I must be silenced. Differences of opinion and different approaches are simply not permitted in the world of orthodox religionists.

ScreenHunter_336 May. 10 15.00

Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @VariabilityBlog @DumbSci …

About stevengoddard

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

37 Responses to No Debate Permitted Here

  1. tom0mason says:

    Victor appears to be using the word ‘proof’ in a manner of which I was previously unaware.

    Proof of a difference (of a method or outcome) in science does not confer proof of correctness, it merely highlights the attributes of the methodologies or their outcomes or both.
    Victor appears to think that proof of difference is proof of error.

    • _Jim says:

      Victor Venema or a Victor Enema; I really don’t want to hear what is on everybody’s mind, and some ppl even less so …

      – unknown author tired of idiots

      • tom0mason says:

        Very true, and there seems to be an increase of them lately, or is it just the volume’s been turned-up

        • _Jim says:

          Who was it that said: “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.”

          and to which I would add: “until one’s first post.” Broadband to the masses is Tower of Babel gone viral …

          One’s next debate opponent can range anywhere from a pimply-faced teenager, to a savant with any one of a number of specialized talents, mind-numbed union ‘hacks’ working out of the basement of the DNC or the president himself (the present occupant excepted; it would be as obvious as the debates with ems-thing-a-ma-jig or SDB that one was in ‘debate’ opposite an idiot.)

          .

  2. omanuel says:

    Steven,

    World leaders and their armies of puppet scientists are now desperate.

    They will not accept and cannot defeat evidence the Creator and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system is in the core of the Sun.

    Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

    Thank you for allowing me to post this information.

  3. Ockham57 says:

    On the contrary. The WUWT post only confirms the validity of Steve’s method. Critics want to concentrate on the spike at the end of the plot that is due to systematic error of some sort. What is evident to the critically thinking, is that the trends of all four methods mostly agree. There is a minor 0.1 to 0.2 degree difference, but the trend of cooling the past almost a full degree is replicated and validated. Heck, if we were climate scientists, we would take a multi-model mean and call it good.

    Steve, keep up the good work. As far as I know, you are the only one who actually tries to demonstrate the fr-aud committed by the climate gatekeepers. I welcome WUWT bringing attention to your work and spawning wider discussion. Thank you.

  4. Andy DC says:

    They seem quick to want to cool the 1940’s based on station moves from urban areas to suburban airports, but likewise, they should likewise adjust the more recent years down because there has been considerable urbanization around many of those same airport stations.

    I would think, for the past 50-60 years or so, the adjustments (if any) should be to cool with time, not to warm. Have they done so? To pose the question given this current agenda is to answer it.

  5. Ben Vorlich says:

    First comment ond reply on WUWT

    Thierry says:
    May 10, 2014 at 6:44 am
    Hi Anthony,

    It looks like that there is still a little bit less that 1°F temperature adjustment with your last 3 methods since the 40′s. Why did not you comment about that ?

    REPLY: I did, see -“The one thing common to all of it though is that it cools the past, and many people don’t see that as a justifiable or even an honest adjustment.” – Anthony

  6. Dave N says:

    I’d like him to show how your reputation invalidates the graph, showing data and methods.

    Of course, that statement is rhetorical; he’s a moron.

  7. Send Al to the Pole says:

    If adjustments were required in the raw data, they would only be legitimate if station specific. Anthony’s own Surfacestations project concludes that most stations are biased to the upside.

    So, at raw, we begin with temps biased to the upside, and likely more so as time has passed. Then they are adjusted higher (or the past is reduced) by TOBS, Homogenization, or dubious “assumptions” about seawater measurements by warships.

    All of these changes together exceed the signal of “warming”.

    The “Team” set out to perpetuate plausible rationale for what they wanted to do – make reality conform to ideology.

  8. De Paus says:

    I am surprised by this recent posting on wattsupwiththat. There is a point that Watts has missed. By taking the average of all existing weather stations, even Steven Goddard is being a bit warm bias. In the course of time they have abandoned some weather stations on higher elevations and in rural areas. The reason is that those stations reported low temperatures. These stations were replaced by stations in cities with big UHI effects and on busy airfields with huge tarmacs. So the only criticism that I have is that the data tampering is even bigger than Steven Goddard is showing us.

    • kuhnkat says:

      De Paus, as they use anomalies you would have to show that those high altitude stations have a lower trend than the ones they kept or started using for that to be an issue.

  9. Windsong says:

    It would be of interest to see Victor’s critique of the methodology used by the likes of Michael Mann. If he could get it.

    Steve merely had a different approach that arrives at a different point on the graph. From what I read, when Anthony requested Steve’s data, he shared it. Steve did not keep it secret, unlike some researchers who hide behind a legion of lawyers.

  10. Bryan Wiley says:

    “Much ado about nothing” – might over-simplify the difference of opinion. I found it interesting and actually refreshing to see two skeptics disagree on an approach to the data. Keeps y’all honest. Respect both of you good men. Kept it civil, too.

  11. omanuel says:

    Steven, you are a much greater threat than Anthony Watts to the community of “me too” scientists.

  12. jimash1 says:

    Dude,
    They hate you. And they use Anthony to bash you.
    And they don’t think much of him either, but someone told them that there was a rift .
    I am constantly amazed that they even pay that much attention.
    It is certainly more attention than they give the actual weather.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Divide and Conquer in action.

      The big problem for the Progressives is the entire house of cards is fragile. Once the blinders are ripped of for one piece of propaganda the Sheeple is in danger of seeing just how massive the propaganda is and that it permeates everything. Worse the Sheeple might actually figure out the real goal is to enforce serfdom on him and his childrenand if necessary kill him for no other reason than his belief in independence.

      This is the problem that has to be prevented at all costs.

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

      “It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist

      Tom West describing Stalin’s outlook:

      Only one man, the wisest and strongest of all, can be entrusted with the task of building socialism. And this man must not flinch from inflicting mass killings, deliberate famines, and torture involving the suffering and deaths of many millions of people. The Wise Man must employ whatever means he deems necessary to root out the millions of enemies of the people so that he can lead men to perpetual peace, happiness, and total communization.

      George Bernard Shaw also described the true socialist’s blood thristy outlook:

      “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

      Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

      “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

      George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

      Once you rip the sheepskin off you see the wolf beneath and that must be avoided at all costs.

      • emsnews says:

        Absolutely everyone at either end of the political spectrum likes to call all others ‘sheeple’.

        This is rather sad because we are all ‘sheep’ in the bitter end. Unless you want to be a ‘wolf’ and then we have the political and religious extremes that kill millions of people due to small ideological differences. Sometimes, tiny ideological differences.

        • _Jim says:

          re: sheeple … one important difference is, you can’t in anyway support your arguments, assertions, or contentions on account of terminal brainlessness … your comments are generally quite banal and your logic unusually specious …

  13. The Griss says:

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

    Several pages..

    If you think the US data has been “adjusted” Just have a look at what BOM does to many temperature stations in Australia. !

  14. norilsk says:

    Steve, you know your close to the target when you’re taking flak!

    • _Jim says:

      Ouch. Just have to re-write this. Otherwise, it does not ‘read’ or parse correctly.

      Steve, you know you are close to the target when …

      or, using a contraction for the “you are”:

      Steve, you know you’re close to the target when …

      .

  15. Eric says:

    You know you’re effective when somebody wants to silence your words.

  16. Ernest Bush says:

    Having seen so much data and research presented on this site showing that, in fact, the U.S. was hotter in the 30s, I was frustrated at some of the other comments. When the adjusted data doesn’t agree with what is already known historically, then it is no longer data. The results of the other methods of calculations were not much different from Steve’s when presented on a graph. Most of the other commenters overlooked the fact that all four plots presented a false picture, historically. One can only conclude that, no matter what method is used, the data was changed on purpose with an agenda in mind.

    • jimash1 says:

      “”

      “When the adjusted data doesn’t agree with what is already known historically, then it is no longer data.”

      That is what I think too. But when I try to debate with some of these people, and present some of the historical data, newspaper stories, or wikipedia historical pages on the 1930’s and 1970’s, they are literally so propagandized that they are incapable of digesting it.

  17. Clankster says:

    Warmists never debate, Skeptics do. Who are the real scientists?

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Victor’s argument against debating skeptics is worth a read:
      http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/venema-debatable-debates.html
      He concludes:

      “It will certainly not help scientific progress. I fail to see how it would help in communicating our current understanding to the public. A documentary seems much better suited for that.”

      A documentary? Like the one-sided propaganda films such as “An inconvenient truth”, or “Years of living dangerously”. I can see why he likes them. There is no debate in them whatsoever.

  18. bubbagyro says:

    II wonder why the common usage favors a person being a “McCarthyite”, and not a “McCarthyist”. The practice itself is called McCarthyism, not McCarthyitism. Baffling.

    • For the same reason that a follower of Stalin was a “Stalinist” but to any Stalinist a follower of Trotsky was a Trotskyite. Damned commies.

    • Gail Combs says:

      From WIKI:

      McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”

      Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations. ~ Covert Operations Motto

      What is interesting about McCarthy is he was actually correct. An April 1994 article tucked in the back pages of the Wall Street Journal said that papers from the Kremlin showed that activist organizations in the USA were not only funded by the KGB but were actually run by KGB agents here in the USA. However the KGB made sure their real agents of influence had no connections to the US Communist Party.

      Americans, including McCarthy, were trusting novices dealing with professionals who had survived decades as plotting revolutionaries targeted by the Russian Imperial security service, the Okhrana among others. The entire soviet ruling class were espionage agents baptised in fire.

      From : Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

      …There is absolutely no reason to focus on ties to the CPUSA as the definitive indicator of an American working as an agent for the KGB. This would be as counter-productive in actually identifying espionage agents as if Russian counterintelligence only suspected members of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce as potential agents for American intelligence.

      In fact, in this research I developed a screening method for identifying suspected Comintern covert influence agents, which will be described in detail in a later chapter. The key indicators are travel to the Soviet Union, expression of a point of view congruent with the line of the communist party of the Soviet Union, and an improvement in living circumstances….
      ……

      ….For example, it’s likely that George S. Counts, an extremely productive covert influence agent, was provided a fig-leaf that masked the true identity of his handlers. He was provided with massive amounts of payload material, which he parlayed into a successful career as America’s premier expert on Soviet education. The payloads he inserted into American education and academia resonate today, in PC attacks on American exceptionalism….

      Note the WIKI entry on Counts only mentions “Counts traveled to the Soviet Union several times in the course of his life, writing several books about Soviet education and comparing Soviet and American education systems. In the 1930s William Randolph Hearst used select statements from interviews with Counts to portray American university faculty as Communist Party sympathizers.”

      Ernest Hemingway (Code name Argo) who was not only a novelist but a journalist, also traveled to the Soviet Union and met with KGB officers. (page 152 – 155 Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Haynes, Klehr and Vassiliev)

      Part of the problem for McCarthy was there were two different KGB programs running in the USA at the same time. One was intelligence gathering which the book Spies covers. These were the actual hard core “Spies” involved in intelligence collection operations.

      The other program was the more vague covert influence operations that did not depend on actual Soviet Spies. Instead it used ‘Willing Accomplices’ or as Willi Münzenberg called them ‘Innocents’

      The Soviet intelligence goals, as noted by Christopher Andrew, were not only to “… collect intelligence… but also to penetrate and destabilize…” adversaries…

      ….Soviet intelligence called these other types of operations Active Measures. U.S. intelligence terminology is different. But most of the operations the Soviets called Active Measures would be Covert Action in American terminology.

      Active Measure operations differ from collection operations in one very important aspect—the effects of Active Measure operations can continue forever. This is the root of Willing Accomplices, and a fact that is overlooked by almost all historians and commentators. It’s worth repeating, with emphasis: The effects of Active Measures can last forever.

      This is the origin of the Progressives and the current Poltical Correctness we see crippling the USA today.

      ..The agents of influence denigrated American patriotism, capitalism, and individualism, and called into question American foreign policy, all of which seemed to form the philosophical basis of an elite attitude, which coalesced during the Great Depression and was nurtured and strengthened by the American transmitters of the KGB’s covert influence operations: journalists, screenwriters, and professors, among others. A Willing Accomplice in Hollywood, in the 1950s, commented that by participating in the anti-anti- communist groups, “I would be spared the agony of thinking my way through difficult issues: all the thinking would be done for me by an elite core of trained [thinkers]…”
      ……

      ..The KGB specialist carefully differentiates his operations, during the Cold War, from those of the International Department (ID) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). He admits that both the KGB’s Active Measures groups and the ID were “attacking some of the same targets by developing campaigns and demonstrations…” And KGB officers would usually be the conduits for clandestine payments to the ID’s covert influence fronts—“international organizations of lawyers or peace lovers or students…” But he notes that there was no “single coordinated program” of Soviet Active Measures. The KGB general is adamant about the bureaucratic differentiation of the operations run by the ID—which was the successor to the Comintern’s OMS…..
      …….

      Measure operations. From an outsider’s perspective, this is interesting because it confirms analysis that Muenzenberg’s Covert Influence operations were run under cover of the OMS. The Active Measures specialist described covert influence operations:

      To deliver our policy line to key foreign government people in ways that did not seem to come from us, we would use friendly Westerns who were close to them. Our assets— sometimes just trusted persons without being fully recruited agents—included political activists, journalists, scientists, or government and military officials—and even sometimes businessmen. Sometimes we would get our own diplomats to drop ‘indiscreet’ remarks to their Western colleagues.

      In the end, the main goal of Covert Influence Active Measures against the U.S. was to move political and public opinion “away from the conservative parties that were opposing our policies,” in the words of a KGB Active Measures manager. …

      You can see why McCarthy was at such a disadvantage. As Mr. Clizbe has shown, in many cases the people involved were not even aware they were being used.

      These covert influence operations were what Khrushchev was referring to when he said

      “Your children will live under communism. “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

      Khrushchev would have been well aware that…

      …The KGB utilized Willing Accomplices to spread the message that America was an evil, racist, imperialist war-monger and that Communism was a benign, noble experiment designed to rid the world of corruption, oppression and injustice.

      Covert Influence Payload
      Babette Gross, wife of KGB agent Willi Muenzenberg, explained the content of the Soviet payload to Stephen Koch:
      * You claim to be an independent-minded idealist.
      * You don’t really understand politics, but you think the little guy is getting a lousy break.
      * You believe in open-mindedness.
      * You are shocked, frightened by what is going on right here in our own country.
      * You’re frightened by the racism, by the oppression of the workingman.
      * You think the Russians are trying a great human experiment, and you hope it works.
      * You believe in peace.
      * You yearn for international understanding.
      * You hate fascism.
      * You think the capitalist system is corrupt.

      The purpose…would be to instill a reflexive loathing of the United States and its people as a prime tropism of left-wing enlightenment. ~ Stephen Koch, on KGB Covert Influence Operations

      This payload exactly matches today’s PC-Progressive message. The message that Soviet covert operators propagated through American Willing Accomplices….

  19. bullright says:

    Orthodox religionists is the the right term.

  20. Charles Nelson says:

    As far as I can see the entire discussion ended up in general agreement that the past is being cooled thru adjustments. Nice to know the Warmists are keeping such a close eye on the leading sceptic blogs…their own blogs are ‘dying in the arse’ as we say here in Australia!

  21. Billy Liar says:

    The reputation of Victor Venomous is also well-known.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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