archive.is · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by khayman80 · 2016-01-26 08:29 · Score: 1 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]
Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-25 11:46 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re: Contrived Correlation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-23 10:53 · Score: 0 · on Mainstream Scientists Cashing In On Climate Wagers (reuters.com)

Yeah, I noticed, nw go look at NOAA's previous adjustments from 1980 until now.

That's the graph you asked for. The direct link to the journal, remember? Of course, once you got it you're changing the subject. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) shows the current adjustments and the "historical data from yesteryears". Fig 2(a) (backup) shows the previous adjustments, in case that will finally satisfy your goal post moving. Which it probably won't.

FYI, you're the ones trying to prove that man-made global warming is not just a hypothesis but a theory...

No, here I'm only "trying to prove" that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do. Which Fig 2 clearly proves. After talking with Sky Dragon Slayers like "Jane Q. Public" aka Lonny Eachus, it's clear that there's no point in trying to prove anything more complicated to internet trolls. (There's generally no point in trying to have any kind of discussion with them, except to spare others that pain.)

... it shouldn't be that hard to bring up the historical data from yesteryears to back up your argument.

Bringing up historical data is the whole point of the "without corrections" line in Fig 2(b) because it shows the "historical data from yesteryears". As I said, those data are publicly available. If you don't know where to get them, just ask for help politely and I'll consider helping you. But I've got very little patience for people like Jane/Lonny who just keep trying to change the subject and seem to get off on accusing scientists of fraud while asking me to volunteer my time to help them refine their libelous accusations.

Re: Contrived Correlation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-23 10:14 · Score: 0 · on Mainstream Scientists Cashing In On Climate Wagers (reuters.com)

" certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do."
Completely false. Go and compare the charts from 1980 and everything between until now, which is the latest fabricated nonsense that you're linking to.

Completely false? Again, look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup). Notice that the green line marked "without corrections" shows less global surface warming over the last century than the black line marked "with corrections"? If not, just fit a trend to each dataset and notice that the green "without corrections" trend line has a steeper slope.

Why would NOAA "fabricate" corrections that result in less surface warming? If you really think they're "fabricating nonsense" then just use the publicly available raw data... which show more global surface warming over the last century.

Or if you're just trolling, keep trying to change the subject away from the simple fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

Re: Contrived Correlation by khayman80 · 2016-01-23 07:18 · Score: 1 · on Mainstream Scientists Cashing In On Climate Wagers (reuters.com)

Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 13:50 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]
You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 13:50 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]
You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 13:50 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]
You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 13:50 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]
You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 13:50 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]
You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 10:56 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny Eachus that true skeptics might wonder how Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer also claimed agreement before satellite adjustments:

1997: "There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two 'breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

So Christy and Spencer claimed "excellent agreement" between their modeled satellite temperatures and balloons. Then other scientists found several mistakes in their model:

Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn't account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn't account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

After grudgingly fixing all these errors, Christy and Spencer might have deigned to explain why they claimed that their previously incorrect modeled satellite temperatures were in "excellent agreement" with balloon data. Instead, they appear to have (correctly) assumed that their unskeptical supporters won't notice or care if they repeat exactly the same claim with their new and differently modeled satellite temperatures.

A true skeptic might wonder how that's possible, but Jane/Lonny Eachus probably won't address this issue with anything but misdirection and baseless insinuations.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 10:56 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny Eachus that true skeptics might wonder how Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer also claimed agreement before satellite adjustments:

1997: "There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two 'breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

So Christy and Spencer claimed "excellent agreement" between their modeled satellite temperatures and balloons. Then other scientists found several mistakes in their model:

Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn't account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn't account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

After grudgingly fixing all these errors, Christy and Spencer might have deigned to explain why they claimed that their previously incorrect modeled satellite temperatures were in "excellent agreement" with balloon data. Instead, they appear to have (correctly) assumed that their unskeptical supporters won't notice or care if they repeat exactly the same claim with their new and differently modeled satellite temperatures.

A true skeptic might wonder how that's possible, but Jane/Lonny Eachus probably won't address this issue with anything but misdirection and baseless insinuations.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-22 10:56 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny Eachus that true skeptics might wonder how Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer also claimed agreement before satellite adjustments:

1997: "There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two 'breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

So Christy and Spencer claimed "excellent agreement" between their modeled satellite temperatures and balloons. Then other scientists found several mistakes in their model:

Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn't account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn't account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

After grudgingly fixing all these errors, Christy and Spencer might have deigned to explain why they claimed that their previously incorrect modeled satellite temperatures were in "excellent agreement" with balloon data. Instead, they appear to have (correctly) assumed that their unskeptical supporters won't notice or care if they repeat exactly the same claim with their new and differently modeled satellite temperatures.

A true skeptic might wonder how that's possible, but Jane/Lonny Eachus probably won't address this issue with anything but misdirection and baseless insinuations.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-21 08:15 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

A "9/11 Truther" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

https://archive.is/G58Im https://archive.is/GuGzE

https://archive.is/TjlMk https://archive.is/uIGnF

https://archive.is/vLlom https://archive.is/Iz0A2

https://archive.is/k10c4 https://archive.is/KFkCq

https://archive.is/XtZO6 https://archive.is/LHZC7

https://archive.is/MKEDO https://archive.is/NNjEv

https://archive.is/B1jsw https://archive.is/dqD3R

https://archive.is/1EDRS https://archive.is/rhYhe

https://archive.is/fvX5f https://archive.is/E9iuB

https://archive.is/RXXHh https://archive.is/upXjj

This is very similar to climate change, where Sky Dragon Slayers like Dr. Latour deny basic physics. A "Sky Dragon Slayer" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

Domain: archive.is

Comments · 1,423