David Appell says that this graph is fraudulent. I challenge him to either prove it, or move to Greenland and stop using fossil fuels.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,965 other subscribers
Let’s be honest, does anybody have any reason to take Appell seriously … he’s off with the faeries!
I don’t think any self-respecting faery would give Appell the time of day!
A rotten Appell in the Church of AGW.
Your graphs obviously embarrass the community of consensus scientists.
The message clearly contradicts the message they promote in exchange for government research funds.
David Appel has the IQ of a really big box of really stupid rocks
An Appell rotten to the very core. !
David Apfel should grow a pear and fess up to his psychosis issues. He should consider medication.
It should always be up to people like David Appell to defend any point of conflict that disputes their pet theory. That is how the scientific process works. So, if Appell disputes any of the data shown, let him show where it is wrong. David Appell can go back on every post of this site and the other skeptical sites and give us the proofs that support his pet theory of CAGW. But he shouldn’t be allowed to shotgun his choices. Take on all comers. If he were to do this; he would be buried in data that proves his pet theory is invalid. The theory of CAGW is not just invalid, it’s a hoax, sham, lie, a money pit for the incompetent, and a crutch used by the greens to cripple industry and our economy.
David Appell refuses to be confused by factual information.
He claims to have a physics degree……..his name appears on peer reviewed papers but someone else must have done the heavy lifting. The traffic on Appell’s site will tell you that only the nuttiest Alarmists take him seriously.
Please don’t ever mention Appell again.
Climategate emails that surfaced in Nov 2009 – and five years of official excuses for data manipulation – have finally shown the validity of George Orwell’s warning in a book he started writing in 1946 on the emergence of a new totalitarian government that would rule society by deception: “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
I was too caught up in self to grasp the signifance of lock-step consensus science in 1984.
Twenty- five years later – thanks to
Climategate – we now know why the foundations of astronomy, astro- and nuclear physics and cosmology were changed in 1946 – the year George Orwell started writing “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
I’ve personally conversed with David Appel and read his ludicrous confused articles. I’ve also witnessed his malicious and criminal stalking of on-line bloggers – giving out the addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information on-line of people he mistakenly believes are associated with blogs he targets. He has been banned from most skeptic blogs for his abhorrent behavior. He is a psychopath who should not be given the time of day.
I’ve had the pleasure of taunting that fat unpleasant little troll as well.
He’s a fanatic, a narrowly-focused mind at the limits of its capabilities in even his minute subspecialty. A physics PhD? I can only imagine the sheer exasperation of his thesis advisers….how they must have wrestled with the conundrum–“How to get this irritating little shit to leave my department….without sullying the department by granting him its doctorate…”
In the end, the did the only rational thing–granted the degree in self-defense.
He will not answer questions outside his tiny domain–“radiative forcing”. I shut him down on three different sites with the basics:
Annual carbon emissions by source:
Earth land mass: 60GT/yr
Earth ocean mass: 90GT/yr
Human activity: 5GT/yr
Man’s portion: 3%. We’re not causing “it” even if “it” is happening, and you have neither defined “it” nor proven “it” is happening.
So FOAD, Mr. (I will not call you Dr) Appell.
Makes perfect sense. I’ve never seen him win an argument, even in subjects he claims to have expertise in.
I would normally not us such strong language about an individual except Appel tried to harm a personal friend and in doing so exposed an innocent person he mistakenly thought was my friend to potential retribution from his fellow travelers. Fortunately the blog site he posted the person’s name, address, and other personal information on took his posts down and banned him for attempting to expose an innocent person to malicious harm. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes I would never believe a so-called intelligent person would engage in such abhorrent behavior.
My best advice… don’t engage or feed the troll.
Appel’s silence here is all one needs to know.
I love engaging with David, which I’ve done a number of times when he was prone to visit a friend of mine’s blog for epic blog fights. It is, though, like fighting a gelatinous cube with a feather. Fun yet futile.
Every time we got to a point where David would have to acknowledge the science or disappear up a unicorn’s orifice he chose the blue pill. It was hilarious, albeit pretty hard on the unicorn.
It’s exactly like arguing with the Comic Book Guy in The Simpsons:
I’ve witnessed some of your engagements with David. I suffices to say popcorn sales went up during some of the more protracted debates.
Oh but the poor unicorn.
Perhaps he’s assuming that there’s no such thing as unadjusted values?
Just add his name to the list of Alarmists who will be posted on the world’s “Wall Of Shame” a few years from now, [after the American spring /sarc ;^D
The wall will be filled with the names of world leaders, not mere puppets, that threatened the very survival of mankind by an unreported decision to forbid public knowledge of “THE FORCE” that generates all food, fuel and energy in the solar system:
Appell needs to show a strong Northern drift in new stations or some other biases. Or STFU.
Is he still around?…..I had forgotten about him
Of course the graph is fraudulent. Read Daffell Huff, “How to Lie with Statistics,” Chapter 5, “The Gee-Whiz Graph.” (Page 60 of the 1975 Pelican edition.)
At the same time I admit that the difference between 98% and 84% is fairly substantial, and graphs that contain show only the chart line have become the norm. It’s up to the sophisticated reader to spot the deception.
Erratum for Daffell Huff read Darrell Huff. Arfritis doncha know.
Brilliant. Are you thinking that some winters it isn’t going to snow in Michigan?
The scaling is completely appropriate.
How does eliminating excess white space (scale) in a graph constitute fraud? It is entirely appropriate for a graph to scale within the bounds of variability of the data. It’s statistics 101.
Sure, but only if you show it as a ‘blowup’ of one with the zero baseline.
I haven’t a clue as to why showing an area of the graph that has no data in it would somehow be a more appropriate way of showing data. If the data varies between 94.0 and 95.5, showing it with a base line of zero would eliminate the obvious variation In the data. The zero baseline is useful only when you are showing data relevant to it.
Darrell Huff maintains that a graph must contain a zero baseline. I entirely disagree.
In my work, we are required to show the zero baseline when it is of importance or rescale to include the bounds of the data and error ranges when the zero baseline has no importance. For example, a lot of my work involves regression models. If the x intercept never = 0, the zero baseline is of no importance. In such cases let the non-zero intercept be the baseline. It’s entirely acceptable to my audience who can read the tick value of the Y axis and properly interpret the graph.
Okay, but to me the point is that people far too often can’t read graphs correctly and can be easily misled by the visual impression. I will concede the point, somewhat, where you know that the audience does know how to read graphs.
Dave will have a rough time without 2 bags full of McDonald’s hamburgers in Greenland.
Where is he anyhow. I don’t even observe him under a pseudonym.