Desperately Seeking Nothing

The number of bizarre theories I have heard in recent weeks about what is wrong with my temperature adjustment graphs is incredibly entertaining.

There is nothing wrong with the graphs. The data is being altered. We have known this for years. Hansen shows exactly the same thing I do.

What has brought on this recent wave of mass stupidity?

About stevengoddard

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

17 Responses to Desperately Seeking Nothing

  1. Truthseeker says:

    Nit pick warning …
    “They data is being altered”
    The data is being altered

  2. Eric Barnes says:

    … Mass Stupidity?

    Grant money. The federal government is buying people with borrowed money and their printing press.

  3. Mike D says:

    Haven’t you noticed? For some reason the tide shifted in the world and even the regular media is questioning the chosen one, and for real now instead of pretend. When it comes to those who blindly follow, once the ranks break, everyone just starts going down their own nutty path.

    It’s like the Occupy Wall Street “protests”. No one can explain what they were about because all the whack jobs were out there “protesting” whatever they wanted. What they needed was one person with a plan, and instead they did stupid stuff like calling votes on what they were protesting, after the fact.

    Expect some more chaos until someone comes around to get everyone back in line.

    • geran says:

      ‘Expect some more chaos until someone comes around to get everyone back in line.’

      Mike D got it right.

  4. B says:

    People can’t admit they believed a lie. This past winter has forced the lying to a level where it’s very difficult to ignore.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually the people I talked to with one exception just Humphed in disgust when I asked how they liked their “Global Warming” for the last few years.

  5. kuhnkat says:

    “What has brought on this recent wave of mass stupidity?”


  6. Why on Earth do you think requests for data plots of individual stations amounts to claiming there is something wrong with your adjustment graphs? That was true once, indeed, but we all want to use your claims but they must be explained and presented clearly first. You are really out on a limb here, not showing the details involved of your new extraordinary data infilling claim based on such “basic mathematics,” and egomaniacally scoffing at sincere requests for background data plots of individual stations as some sort of sand thrown in your face.

    What a weirdo, with a bizarre tribal cheerleader squad to boot, Jim here even accusing me of mental disease due to vegetarianism?! I mean this is a joke, you claiming you find your cesspool of amateur hour skepticism complete with two crackpots ranting about World War Three this week mightily amusing when it is criticized for not being up to standard.

    You here claim: “There is nothing wrong with the graphs.”

    Yet here is your false hockey stick, referenced dozens of times over several years, and indeed there *was* something wrong with your graphs, now confirmed by a half dozen software adepts over at WUWT, spurred on by my personal taking to task of Tony’s earlier posting of that plot:

    Now you are making a quite similar claim, once again scoffing and making a big scene when I ask for simple plots of individual stations. That is highly suspicious that you have simply become an attention grubbing charlatan, data mining away without context, not even explaining whether the station data is sporadic or sudden-ending. The tiny paragraphs of your presentation are not enough for others to at all understand the detailed *nature* of the computations you (and they) are making.

    I guess I’ll have to wait another two years at this rate, to figure out what you are really looking at. All I see is a page of numbers in an archive file and a plot of the final result with no detail of the input data, and a claim of the BIGGEST FRAUD IN SCIENTIFIC HISTORY, in the tone of a crackpot.

    This week I’m figuring out parametric quadrilateral meshing of curve outlines with holes to translate them into t-spines for 3D modeling that I will then carve out with a CNC router with an eight-sided 45 inclined indexing jig I invented. I have no time to chase your rabbit for you so others might understand the actual details. It behooves you to show your work before others are forced to clarify it for you…again.

    In another post you say: “I plotted the USHCN V2.5 adjusted data below, distinguishing between data which was adjusted from raw data (red) and completely fake data (blue.)”

    But you *fail* to tell what you are really doing. Are you tossing out whole stations that have missing data? Or are you picking out parts of the data from each? Really, this is very unclear, having little to do with your software or the plots themselves, only the how you are actually using that software to make them. You can’t possibly be tossing out entire stations, since all stations have missing data here and there. Yet if not, then what meaning can attach to some sort of slicing and dicing math? Don’t think it’s valid to call confusion over your *confusing* presentation a sign of stupidity, because scientific curiosity of details is smart, not stupid and you know it because everybody knows it, by logic alone.

  7. gator69 says:

    My guess is that there are many folks out there who lost their meds thanks to Skeetercare.

  8. What has brought on this recent wave of mass stupidity?

    Climate chaos?

  9. Edmonton Al says:

    If climate is chaotic, then, by definition, it cannot be predicted in the future.
    Therefore, the alarmists cannot say that there will “x” degrees of global warming.
    Mass stupidity, IMO, refers to those who tout the UN IPCC political agenda and refuse to accept the facts that higher CO2 levels in the past did no harm and that higher CO2 levels in the present are not causing global warming.
    GHGT[Green House Gas Theory] claims that rising CO2 levels causes warming, and lower CO2 levels causes cooling, by way of the GHE[GreenHouse Effect].
    None of these claims has occured, past or present, thereby nullifying the claim that CO2 is causing climate change.
    The GHE has been debunked, logically, mathematically, experimentally, and empirically.
    The CO2 scare tactic was picked up by Maurice Strong years ago when he formed the UN IPCC, and was the basis of their political agenda [Agenda21].
    When asked if the science behind the CO2 scare was true, the answer was; “It does not matter if the science is true. It only matters what people believe to be true”.
    That was before the internet and social networking.

  10. emsnews says:

    Since the sun is the #1 driver of climate, we can’t predict what will happen easily unless the sun acts ‘normal’ which…it most certainly doesn’t do!

    Since we know the sun isn’t this ball of hot stuff that never alters, we must assume we will have climate changes like the abrupt Ice Ages that happened over and over again.

    Anyone claiming we will have a different future has a lot to prove and can’t assume the sun will remain ‘normal’ forever.

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