Lubos Missing The Forest For The Trees

Check out this nonsense from Lubos

Many skeptics’ adjustment-phobia unmasks their anti-scientific credentials

Whether or not you apply one of the specified major adjustments or two or none of them doesn’t visibly affect the resulting graph at all.

I am surely a “lukewarmer”, together with Steven Mosher, because the label of the full-fledged skeptics has been hijacked by anti-science nut jobs, indeed.

The Reference Frame: If done right, temperature adjustments are great

Lubos has no clue what he is talking about. The only decent temperature record is in the US, and it has been massively altered to cool the past.

ScreenHunter_626 Mar. 15 10.10

The global surface temperature record is complete crap, with most of the land surface not covered, more than 50% of the data fake, and huge selective loss of rural stations since the 1970’s

ncdclandrealvspublished1 (3)

Check out this whopper from Lubos.

The temperature record resulting from the weather stations differs from the graphs generated by the satellites – not by too much

Utter bullshit, Lubos. The divergence between Berkeley Earth and satellites is massive

ScreenHunter_6940 Feb. 08 11.50

Why a few skeptics are letting themselves be used like this is beyond my comprehension. The temperature record has been massively and successively altered across the planet, through replacement of rural data with urban data.

gissfiga2002-2014 (4)

ScreenHunter_7025 Feb. 10 11.00

ScreenHunter_7019 Feb. 10 07.52

ScreenHunter_7026 Feb. 10 12.08

Lubos is focused on one aspect of the problem, and missing the forest for the trees. We have  a great opportunity to finish this scam off, and a small group of academics are letting themselves be used to sabotage it. And then calling other skeptics “anti-science nut jobs


About stevengoddard

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

100 Responses to Lubos Missing The Forest For The Trees

  1. Eric Barnes says:

    Some prefer vanity over truth.

    • omanuel says:

      Is that why Lubos assumes:

      1. Interstellar Hydrogen makes stars instead of stars making interstellar H?

      2. Neutrons attract other neutrons instead of neutron repulsion?

      3. Climate change is caused by CO2 instead of the Sun’s pulsar core?

  2. BobW in NC says:

    “Many skeptics’ adjustment-phobia unmasks their anti-scientific credentials.”

    What utter C***!

    I love it! When you can’t put forth a solidly reasoned argument supported by documentation with valid, confirmed data, well, then you attack with an vicious ad hominem to try to shut your opponents up!!!

    And Lubos has the unmitigated gall to call US “anti-scientific”?

  3. ren says:

    The volume of ice in the Arctic is the largest of five years.

  4. gator69 says:

    What was Lubos smoking? Or was he just out of ideas.

    Social security may send you more accurate payments adjusted for inflation, adaptive optics improves some telescopes as well as Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars, eyeglasses adjust some vision disorders,

    What a rambling piece of a strawman argument.

    In particular, we have the problem of the urban heat islands. While it is obvious that the urban heat islands do add a temperature change comparable to 1 °C

    He admits to 1C UHI (it is actually higher), but then fails to mention the 0.1C (on average) under-adjustment for this.

    But while it’s true that one must be careful not to apply adjustments incorrectly or selectively in order to push the data in a fixed direction, one must also honestly recognize that many adjustments make the underlying science (or technology) more accurate – and many of these adjustments don’t matter much, anyway.

    In one sentence he admits that adjustments are bad if they only go one direction (hello!), and then chides skeptics for not knowing adjustments can be valid, then wraps it up by saying it doesn’t matter anyway.

    Thanks for the update, Les.

    • KTM says:

      If Social Security went back and retroactively “adjusted” the SS checks people cashed for the last 20 years downward by 1% per year, people would be rioting in the streets.

      Would they be able to convince seniors that the checks weren’t as high as they remember after all?

    • PeterKos says:

      gator: Lubos doesn’t smoke anything. He is just so full of himself. As I understand it, he stands at a three-way mirror every morning smiling at his image while giving praise to himself for how much more smarted his reflection tells him he is than any mere mortal he has ever bumped into.

  5. Lubos Motl says:

    Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.

    Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.

    I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.

    • kuhnkat says:

      Dear Mr. PHD Motl, where is your evidence supporting the idea that the adjustments and especially the methods used to implement them and compute the so galled Global Average Temperature have any value at all?

      Arguments from or for authority are invalid.

  6. Eliza says:

    Basically whats happening and it was totally predictable, is that skeptics are now becoming total non-believers in the whole idea of AGW, and you have some left who still believe the earth is warming and some of it is due to human C02 (ie Lomborg, WUWT, Curry,Lubos, Monckton ect). When you look at the evidence of data manipulation that is so obvious now (and really was from Climategate) , It will take some time for it too sink in that they have all been royally had. My father was employed to FIX all the stevenson Boxes for the WMO (as an expert Atmospheric Physicist and Meteorologist with various publications in NATURE, and studied with Einstein at the Max Planck Intitut fur Physic from 1935-37), in Bolivia and Paraguay from 1964 to 1977 so the RAW data from this area is correct. The adjusted data is a complete FRAUD these people should be prosecuted.

    • omanuel says:

      Your last sentence expresses well the rude awakening we must each make before realizing government deceit and personal freedom are ends of a “see-saw.”

      Gov. Deceit________Personal Freedom

      In the old USSR and the present USA, deceit is high; Personal freedom, low

  7. ren says:

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
    “A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or a little below half of the central estimate of 0.70 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, in IPCC (1990). The outturn is well below even the least estimate.

    Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).”

  8. Dave1billion says:

    The characterization of other critics as “anti-science nut jobs” says it all.

    I disagree with him so he’s obviously stupid.

  9. omanuel says:

    Lubos swallowed consensus science models whole, and now cannot grasp that . . .

    Data Adjustments Save Models !

    Temperature adjustments are minor compared to adjustments made by space “scientists” to hide the fact that the Sun selectively moves lightweight elements and lightweight isotopes of each element to the photosphere and solar wind.

    The curved line defined by data points from analysis of Apollo lunar dirt was converted into a flat, horizontal line to confirm the Standard Solar Model’s prediction: The interior of the Sun must be composed of H and He just like the Sun’s outer photosphere:

  10. Eliza says:

    Just so Lubos knows I ain’t talking @@@@. My father was one of these authors Nolan ect (he may recognize who knows?)

    Click to access bk-0003-1109-chapter04.pdf

    • Gail Combs says:

      Eliza, go make your comment on Lubos site. I did linking to the comments I made about the historical documents.

      Your information is also very valuable because it is validation from a completely different ‘method’ as is mine. Doing the same experiment over and over is all well and good but validation from an entirely different method is even better because it lends a lot more weight.

  11. omanuel says:

    Instead of adjusting data from the Galileo Probe of Jupiter in 1995 –

    data that confirmed the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe)

    – data were hidden from the public until 1998, when the Administrator of NASA was confronted in public while being filmed by CSPAN news.

    I may post the news video so Lubos can help NASA explain why they hid data that cost the American taxpayers >$1,000,000,000.

  12. FTOP_T says:

    I question all the presentations of anomaly temperature trending. We are dealing with a poorly covered sphere that is 70% ocean and “algorithms” to “calculate the missing information. Add to that the tremendous adjustments with little scrutiny and you basically have an Enron spreadsheet to manufacture your results.

    Since temperatures range from -88C to over 56C annually across the sphere, it is ludicrous to measure change in .1 increments and plot a y-axis that spans 2 degrees in range. Graph annual unadjusted temperature on a 150C range y-axis and you have a flat line.

    This is tortured data water boarded on a chart. The only thing more absurd than this whole process is the venom from its defenders.

  13. Every time we see significant adjustments, they should be challenged.

    The logic of Lubos and co is that all the warming adj tend to cancel out the cooling ones. This seems to me to be incredibly poor science, even if it were true. Data always needs to be accurate, not just full of poor data that cancels out.

    • KTM says:

      CRU has admitted that they destroyed many of the original temperature records going back for decades. Now we all just have to take their word that the databases that are left are properly “adjusted”. It shows how much contempt these folks have for the raw data.

      Whether they are destroying physical data records, or destroying the raw data with adjustments that they can’t or won’t explain, they should not be let off the hook.

      • cheshirered says:

        Have always wondered why that admission didn’t result in an instant dismissal for the man / men tasked with keeping those records safe. Should have been fired on the day of their admission.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Paul you just DON’T adjust data period! Ernest Beck showed the correct way to handle old data.

      When you open the door to adjustments, you open the door to fraud and accusations of fraud.

      • Jason Calley says:

        At the risk of being a bit pedantic — “you just DON’T adjust data period!”

        UNLESS…. you have a clear, specific, unambiguous, quantifiable reason, and you are open about how much and why you did the adjustment. “After 38 months of use, the thermometer at Boondocks Weather Station was found to suffer from a manufacturing defect that misaligned the scale and led to all readings being 0.4 degrees too low in the period before its replacement.” Needless to say, such adjustments are VERY rare and need to be specific to the site, quantifiable, repeatable, verifiable and well documented.

        None of those things seem to be common in the temperature record…

        • Gail Combs says:

          There I will agree with you Jason. However you should not even be finding that sort of problem since the thermometers should be calibrated before being placed in service and on a routine basis.

          On page 12 and 13 of the 1892 Instruction Manual for volunteers there are instructions for comparing the working thermometer to a ‘Standard Thermometer’

          If the thermometer has been calibrated and then falls out of calibration before the next calibration you really can not apply an adjustment unless you have solid evidence of WHEN the instrument went out of calibration. So you are again left with error bars.

          Also note these instruments were the property of the US government although read by volunteers.

          This paper gives an idea of the caliber of scientist involved as volunteers:
          The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891.

          An Account of the “Leste,” or hot wind of Madeira
          by H. Coupland Taylor, M. D. F. R. Met. Soc.

          Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

          I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

          This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

          My opinion (based on my reading) is these volunteers were much more careful scientists than the run of the mill ClimAstrologist that we now have littering the landscape.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail! Yes. There may possibly be reasons (clear, quantifiable, explainable, reproducible, and again I say quantifiable) to adjust data. Part of a good experimental scientist’s job is to conduct the experiment (or measurements) in such a way that adjustments are not needed. The CAGW so-called “scientists” not only have made adjustments far, far beyond any justification, they have repeatedly refused to explain why or how the adjustments are made. Considering the nature of the adjustments, the only rational explanation is that they are changing the data to suit their desired outcome. They are committing the worst sin a scientist can do. They are lying about the data.

  14. Pops says:

    I think someone must have topped-up Lubos’s tip-jar with a few warm greenbacks.

  15. B says:

    “Why a few skeptics are letting themselves be used like this is beyond my comprehension.”

    I will speak in general here, I have absolutely no clue what motivates the individual that is the subject of this post.

    Controlled opposition helps the powerful. It gives those they rule a sense of things being reasonably debated. This is accomplished by creating a comfortable niche for an intellectual or media personality to move into by setting bounds for socially acceptable thought. An acceptable skeptic can get right up to the line but if he doesn’t cross it, he serves a purpose. There’s no real risk until the line is crossed.

    There is of course paid opposition which is something different. That is they are paid to herd and guide the thoughts and efforts of people who don’t believe in what power is doing. This harmlessly disperses and dissipates their energy. But so does the independent skeptic who stays within acceptable bounds. This is more for media personalities, but there are probably some intellectuals out there doing it.

    It’s the essence of two party politics as well. It sets a framework where thought does not stray outside the frame. So long as it is inside the frame power retains power, the gravy still flows to them. Ever notice that once someone gets outside the frame both parties attack him?

    Skeptics let themselves be used like this because they are either afraid of the consequences of going outside the framework of the debate or they make their living by staying within it and keeping other would be skeptics inside it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If you look at WUWT you can see the commenters ‘Herded’ by a few who ONLY comment on certain topics and comment all day long and into the evening.

      Those that I have noticed that seem to fit this criteria are: Lief Svalgaard (solar) Englebeen (CO2 record) and of course Hausfather and Mosher (temperature record). As long as you have ‘Herders’ with good credentials and pat answers at their finger tips it is easy to keep the Controlled opposition within the designated framework of the debate.

      I wonder if Anthony and the rest at WUWT know about this one:

      Shub Niggurath •

      Lubos, you mixed it up.

      Mosher did not call people who question adjustments anti-science nut jobs.

      He just called the people at WUWT ‘anti-science nut jobs’ as in saying even people with such low intelligence could agree to not call Skepticalscience ‘SS’.

      Lubos response:

      Most posters on WUWT, and not only there, question the very concept of adjustments, and from the viewpoint of high enough standards, it makes sense to call them anti-science nut jobs. I am confident that Mosher agrees with both claims.

      I guess I am an ‘anti-science nut job’ because I rather see error bars used.

      • B says:

        This ‘anti-science’ term is all over the place these days. Science is apparently now a religion and any questioning of what its priesthood says or does is ‘anti-science’. The religious nature is has stepped a few more notches lately.

        The changing of data, this black box of adjustments, violates the basics of how I was taught to do science in grade school. Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s that simple. All analysis must be documented, described, and disclosed. It must be open to be questioned. It has now become ‘anti-science’ to demand the rules of science be followed. That’s how I know I am dealing with politics and religion. Everything is relative, political, and social now. There aren’t any hard rules any longer. Maybe there never were and things are just fuzzier than ever. Either way adjustments buried away and ever changing is not science. Needed or not with good reason or not. It may be the science religion that has taken over, but it’s not science.

        • Gail Combs says:

          ” Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s that simple.”

          YES! nicely put and better than I did.

          You are correct science has to be open to validation and verification. Eons ago I remember verification had to be done by at least two other independent labs or it was not even considered as anything but interesting possibilities. That was when I was a practicing chemist and a member of ACS. Now ACS has climbed on the CAGW bandwagon and I dropped my membership.

      • Dave N says:

        Lubos is a Mosher clone – make drive by statements, and doesn’t address (or rarely does) any claims directly.

        If he thinks there’s an issue with something presented here, he should make a *direct* rebuttal; not some vague drivel, and not a display of ignorance (or outright lie) about not having presented *any* argument.

        • Dave N says:

          It’s also ironic that someone who does that labels others as “anti-science”. It’s more like: “I’m not going to rebut, so I’ll call them names in the hope they’ll go away”.

  16. Don says:

    Perhaps Lubos has been let inside the secret chambers, and had conferred upon his person the secret al-gore-rhythm decoder ring.

    As Paul Homewood has clearly shown, the history of the weather in Iceland tells us the truth, while the “homogenized” temperature record shows us the lie.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Lubos certainly seems stuck in the ‘adjustments are needed and necessary’ mode. Perhaps that is because he has always been in Academia.

      I worked in industry (Drugs and Areospace) and if you ‘adjusted data’ you just might find yourself in jail.

      • Ockham says:

        I am an academic and I kind of resent that comment. I don’t know about drugs and aerospace, but in my field (agronomy), I adjust data all the time. It is a basic fact of data quality control. The difference here with climate science however is that I know exactly why I am adjusting based on metadata, but more importantly the adjustments are tracked, made only once and the data is finalized. You don’t touch it ever again. In the bizarre world of climate science, decades-old data are re-adjusted again and again as Stephen has shown. I have never seen a credible argument countering Stephen’s analysis yet.

        • Gail Combs says:

          As you say you do adjustments to the raw data that are documented and tracked.

          In my field (chemistry) the data would be entered in a bound notebook. For drugs it would be signed by me and a second person. All batches that were made would have chemical ID, weights, temperature, … all double checked by a second person and double signed.

          Any corrections to the data would have a single line drawn through the original entry so it was clearly visible. The correction made, the reason for the correction and again double signatures.

          I was also the one who always got stuck escorting the FDA inspector and having to answer all his questions.

          After decades of that I think you can see why the cavalier treatment of data by ClimAstrologists drives my nuts. Especially when I have fired lab techs for much lesser infractions.

  17. omanuel says:

    I submitted the following message:

    a few seconds ago
    Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Reference Frame.

    Regretfully, Lubos, you are wrong.

    Data adjustments are used to protect false consensus models from reality of a pulsar-centered Sun one astronomical unit (1AU) from Earth.

    • omanuel says:

      That comment was deleted so I sent another:

      a minute ago
      Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Reference Frame.

      You or your parents probably lived under communism. You should have recognized the danger of totalitarian science.

      – – –
      Must one swallow the hook in each Standard Model to become a string theoretical physicist?

  18. Blade says:

    Well, as one who has always referred to him as the “great” Lubos Motl this is disappointing to say the least. The thread that Steve links to in the top post “If done right, temperature adjustments are great” is as bad as it can get IMHO.

    First of all, there is not a single circumstance that I can see a way to paint Mosher in a positive light, ( and that is from five years of experience with his AGW religious beliefs ). He is a hit and run artist, not too bright, and arrogant beyond words.

    Secondly, Lubos is downright disgraceful in that thread using the language of the AGW science fictionists e.g., “anti-science nut jobs”. That pisses me off. I think Lubos has spent so much time in esoteric theoretical physics now that he has lost grounding to the empirical. Either that or he wasted too much time watching that stupid “Big Bang Theory” which he obsesses about incessantly. Hey Lubos, like all our cookie-cutter American TV, your show is simply “Friends” with a different coat of paint. You act just like a twelve year old girl who sees her party dress worn by some television actress and can’t shut up about it.

    In the comments in that above-mentioned thread he rudely dismisses a commenter “Shub Niggurath”, eventually banning him! How fascist of him. And Ironic. Does “Real Climate” ring a bell?

    Finally, some time ago, he lost me as a regular reader of his site when he was posting cryptic blog entries mentioning some pending medical issue that apparently was affecting him somehow. How it turned out I could never figure out. Sympathy turns to apathy on a dime when dealing with drama queens unfortunately. But now I am starting to wonder if he had a stroke or something. That would be the ONLY excuse that justifies the offensive bullsh!t he posted in that thread.

    I believe a lot of this type of snarky arrogance comes out of envy and jealousy of Steve Goddard ( think of some big names at WUWT ) who has been singularly relentless in turning over evidence of data *tampering* ( not “adjustments, and certainly NOT “corrections”, Lubos ). These people were all asleep at the switch ( or watching overpaid TV actors play science geeks ) rather than digging through the historical record, or what remains of it. It is a curious fact that some of these same big name jealous folks also are among the select few who have the Climategate 3.0 password, and that really ticks me off.

    P.S. since Lubos says he reads this ( Goddard’s ) blog let me ask him publicly why he sides with data tampering as the best solution for station moves, instead of simply ending that station history and starting a new one? And why not dig out early thermometers and carefully duplicate early recording procedures ( location, time of day, etc ) as a scientific control ( you must have heard of “controls” )? Instead he feels that application of some “trust me” algorithm by a non-trustworthy group of arrogant elites is a fine idea. Trust no-one Lubos. I would have thought you might have learned that by now.

  19. ren says:

    As the Alberta Clipper sweeps by, the gates of the Arctic will be opened from the Upper Midwest to the Northeast.
    Areas made wet and slushy from the storm and moderate temperatures during the middle of the week can become icy and freeze solid. Temperatures may get so low that inexpensive ice-melting compounds, such as rock salt, will be ineffective.

  20. ren says:

    The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from satellite data []. The red contour lines are the year 2000 magnetic field intensity contours (5000 nT contours) shown previously. The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.

  21. baconman says:

    I looked on Curry’s site earlier and the response given to the news report regarding temperature adjustments. All the graphs shown on Curry’s site, with and without adjustments, have very little change associated with them. I know I am missing something here. Why are their graphs so different from yours that have much larger effects from temp adjustments?

  22. Truthseeker says:

    You should read the latest comment by Lubos on that thread …'s+reference+frame)#comment-1846337798

    I particularly like how he calls people like Gail Combs “nut job” and “crackpot” and then says since the adjustments have been automatized by BEST, they are OK.

    • ren says:

      How can be called of someone who does not see the data? The blind?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Since he completely ignored my short comment with a pointer he got several much longer comments. {:>D

      I stole B’s
      “Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s just that simple. “
      As the first sentence.

      Thanks B for putting our position in such clear and simple terms.

  23. Streetcred says:

    I seem to recall Motl writing at his blog that George Soros was behind the incitement of the Ukraine civil war … paying sniper assassins to pick off protesters to implicate others for the killings.

  24. Ernest Bush says:

    How does that old saw go again? Oh…figures don’t lie, but liars figure. That is why the first reaction people have when you explain that NASA and NOAA have been manipulating the temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer is “What?” That and the fact that we are still arguing about changes like 0.3 or 0.7 degree C over a 135-year period. Now tell me who is the “nut job” or “crackpot,” Mr. Motl ?

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Since when do others have to prove the assertion that adjustments made to the world’s temperature records is wrong. It seems to me that those making said adjustments are responsible for showing that they were necessary to correct a supposedly bad measurement system. That sounds like a straw man argument to me.

  25. markstoval says:

    Good evening all. My comment on all of the chatter on this thread is that that temperature records have been tampered with and we all know it. If government backed and funded agencies produced records that were fair, honest, and scientific — like Gail Combs outlined above — we would be looking at global cooling.

    All honest empirical data tells us that CO2 has no warming effect at all. On net CO2 helps the atmosphere cool. Can you imagine if the climate “scientists” had to admit that? Blood in the streets I would think.

    I tend to agree with the Scottish Sceptic on his take about how the “slayers” lost the battles since they can be terrible on PR … and some of them seem to be jerks to boot. But even jerks can be right.

    Worth a read:

  26. Gail Combs says:

    This is rather interesting…

    Luboš Motl host > Truthseeker

    Hi, good to learn that Steve Goddard isn’t the real name. I follow that blog regularly…

    If you follow this blog regularly how could you not know that Tony Heller is Steve’s real name since we address him as Tony on a regular basis.

    • Truthseeker says:

      I noticed that but let it pass. There was so much other material to use. It is a target rich environment …

      • Truthseeker says:

        I have now been blocked from commenting on his site. Lubos, welcome to the Skeptical Science category of blog sites …

        • Gail Combs says:

          After all the information I just dumped on his site I am sure I will soon join you in being blocked.

          I posted goodies like the instruction manual saying

          …When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….

          notrickszone report:

          … test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

          Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!…

          From the Ria Novosti agency

          On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

          The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations….

  27. mysterian says:

    Just another Ph.D. talking outside his expertise…

  28. Gail Combs says:

    What is really funny is I posted two of Tony’s most devistating graphs.
    US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2

    CO2 Drives NCDC Data Tampering

    The response was priceless.

    Luboš Motl host > tarajunky
    • 2 hours ago

    The presentation of this correlation makes it very clear that the person who was doing that has no idea what he’s doing. Instead of a correlation with CO2, one could easily describe it as a correlation between the correction and time – because CO2 depended on time via a monotonically increasing function, anyway.

    The correlation between the correction and time is in no way surprising – it just means that the breakpoints that need to be adjusted were increasing with time. In fact, it may even be understood why these breakpoint corrections were approximately a linear function of CO2 because the CO2 excess above 280 ppm is proportional to the CO2 emissions, for the exponential growth, and CO2 emissions may be easily proportional to the number of urban heat islands that are created and that force to relocate stations etc. – proportional to the overall activity that makes breakpoints necessary.

    At any rate, these adjustments were done automatically at BEST and what they really are, and how small they are, is described by graphs, including the U.S. 48 graphs, at

    No information about CO2 was used (e.g. by BEST) in these temperature reconstructions because it’s temperature, stupid, and only unhinged conspiracy theorists may believe otherwise.

    ROTFLMAO!!! The man can not even read an F–ing GRAPH! These are NOT BEST they are US historic Climate Network – mostly rural stations so his comments are way off base and I just told him so.

    Well that answers the question of whether or not Motl is an Alarmist doesn’t it?

    Also where in Hades did this red herring about relocating stations because of urban heat islands come from? I am not going to chase it down but it is rual stations that have been eliminated not urban.

  29. slimething says:

    Lubos had a severe fungal infection a few years ago. Maybe it reached his brain.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Quite possible. Just about lost a friend to a severe fungal infection. Being diabetic since childhood didn’t help.

  30. Traitor in Chief says:

    It’s amazing to see this situation. Lubos seemed clearly skeptical a few years ago. Strange.

    Some of the statements attributed to him here are well below his ability. Just strange.

  31. Anything is possible says:

    Lubos has form – he made a similar attack on Jo Nova and David Evans :

  32. kuhnkat says:

    Give poor Lubos a break. He got hysterical when I suggested that Putin is an aggressive authoritarian like the Soviets who formed him. I think he needs a long stay in a comforting environment where he can rest from the uncomfortable facts of the world.

  33. Tim Groves says:

    Controlled opposition can be very helpful when one wants to poison debate, make a pig’s breakfast of everything, and ensure nothing threatening to the status quo ever gets firmly established. Has Lubos been a “sleeper” in the climate sceptic movement, has he been turned to the Dark Side, or is this an outburst of egotistical rage fueled by envy? In any case, we know people by their fruits. Labeling dissenters as “nut jobs” or “crackpots” isn’t nice, especially when they don’t deserve it, as is manifestly the case here. I used to have a good deal of respect for Lubos but it’s gone now.

    Now that the essentials of what might be called “temper-tamper-gate” are becoming better known and appreciated more widely, attacks on the validity of the exposé and on the reputations of the people performing this work are only to be expected. It’s an indication that Tony Heller and Paul Homewood are getting the message out and that it makes sense and is beginning to resonate. I’ve found that as long as people who aren’t particularly interested in science or climate are responsive to the idea that the climate hasn’t been warming anywhere near as much as officially stated, they are also open to the idea that fraud is being perpetrated, and planting this second seed can be enough to get them emotionally engaged. Because generally people don’t appreciate having been duped.

    • omanuel says:

      Great analysis. I especially liked the last sentence, “generally people don’t appreciate having been duped.”

      It will be a shock to inflated opinions scientists have of themselves when they finally realize Stalin himself lied to them after forming the UN in 1945

      1. The Sun and ordinary stars make and discard H to interstellar space

      2. Neutron repulsion powers cores of atoms heavier than 150 amu, some planets, stars, galaxies & the cosmos.

      3. Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy was designed to hide neutron repulsion.

      4. Joseph Stalin was a little brighter than most physicists.

  34. omanuel says:

    My advise is that we each try NOT to respond in kind to Lubos.

    I suspect that he was, like Oliver, a very left-wing liberal . . .

    perhaps even a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a critic of the capitalists, and a supporter of the UN.

    It is a shock to the system to realize that the Standard Climate, Solar and Nuclear Models are all absolute BS, designed by propaganda artists to keep us from knowing the nature of the force that destroyed Hiroshima . . .

    the force of creation and destruction!

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 )

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