Watch out TMZ, “Watts up with that?” is the new celebrity gossip site

In March 2012, the Skeptical Science (SkS)was “hacked” by persons unknown. John Cook provided context in a post shortly after the hack:

Sometime over the last few days, the Skeptical Science website has been hacked. The hacker has taken much or all of the Skeptical Science database, zipped various excerpts into a single file, uploaded the file onto a Russian website then linked to the zip file from various blogs. While we are still attempting to verify the authenticity of the file, initial scans seem to indicate the hacker has included the entire database of Skeptical Science users. Access to the full database (which includes private details) is restricted only to myself and I am the only one with access to all of the raw data – this fact alone indicates that this breach of privacy came in the form of an external hack rather than from within Skeptical Science itself.

While the content was made available on the Internet, Anthony Watts was notable in his refusal to exploit this content stating he respected the privacy of the individual:

Rest assured, we are working hard to upgrade Skeptical Science’s security in order to more robustly protect users’ private details. We are also in the process of soliciting legal advice on these matters and contacting the appropriate authorities. We would like to thank those who have come to us with information about this potential hack and those who have decided against spreading the aforementioned files (e.g. Anthony Watts). We all believe that protecting the privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance and we would hope that all illegally obtained documents and files are removed from uploaded servers and disposed of.

However it would now appear the “gloves are off” for Anthony, as he is now frequently reposting snippets of the SkS forum, disregarding the once principled stand he took back in March:

Skeptical Science gets Romm-Bombed 

Posted on September 25, 2012by Anthony Watts 

Reposted from Popular Technology with permission 

Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm 

In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science was found to be even too inaccurate for fellow alarmist Joe Romm of Climate Progress…

And so on.

Perhaps it was the Lewandowsky paper which demonstrated a clear link between conspiracy ideation and climate scepticism that literally enraged sceptic bloggers around the world. Perhaps it was his astonishment at the fact that nearly 20,000 people signed a petition in opposition to his appearance on PBS News Hour.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are clearly seeing Anthony Watts switching strategies: having failed to undermine the science of climate change he is switching to celebrity gossip.

Tales of “warmist” bloggers and climate scientists behaving badly will soon dominate the headlines of WUWT: perhaps we’ll get some grainy shots of topless “warmists” at the beach? Or fussy iPhone pictures of scientists stumbling drunkenly out of night clubs?

Watch out TMZ, there’s a new kid on town.

As a pro-tip Anthony, I’d create a signature tagline – something like “A Watts XOXO”

150 thoughts on “Watch out TMZ, “Watts up with that?” is the new celebrity gossip site

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    The most dodgy snippet I’ve seen so far is one in which an alarmist suggests that a conspiracy is needed to save humanity.

    Do you guys really think like that? Or is this the comment of a lone climate warrior in his bunker, someone who takes it all a bit too seriously?

    If private thoughts like that come to light, by whatever means, and this is what many of you really think, then it makes a mockery of your attempts to paint your opponents as the conspiracy nuts.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Yes, I support a take over of the planet and a wind farms in every back yard.

      Because one out of context quote from a private discussion by a non-scientists proves there is a global conspiracy.

      Nothing is as it seems. Everything is connected. All shall be revealed.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        (Sotto voce: Eric, the above was irony… no I don’t support a global conspiracy. I support political action).

      • Eric Worrall says:

        My apologies, I didn’t provide enough context – I forgot to supply a link to the source.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I’m just glad my private conversations weren’t illegally obtained and published. Otherwise Eric, you might be using my secret discussions with Vladamir Putin and the Chinese on how best to implement a communist world government with the sole aim of suppressing free speech (but only when it opposes my personal biases) on climate change. The end goal of course is to implement a tax.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You can’t have it both ways.

          I provided a non contextual reference, and was accused of quoting out of context.

          So I provided more context, and now I seem to be in trouble for providing context.

          The information on what SKS said in private is now public domain, just as much as the Heartland emails became public domain after Gleick stole them. So my link does not significantly add to the dissemination of their private thoughts, it simply helps you understand my point.

          However all this is rather beside the point – I take it you reject Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) and his suggestion that alarmists need a conspiracy to save humanity?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I’m not in the business of commenting on illegally obtained private conversations, which is quite different to the Heartland documents which I can’t recall ever commenting on anyway so I am NOT having it both ways. Your statement that because they are in the public domain that its okay to use them is wrong. I’m pretty sure if someone posted an illegally obtained naked picture of one of your family members online you wouldn’t endorse it’s use. What about private conversations between yourself and work colleagues or friends? Would that be okay? I think you will find Eric, that hypocrisy is one of my pet hates, and I certainly don’t engage in it. Anyway, what those of us who accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for human induced climate change need is to pressure the media into giving up this nonsense that both sides in a debate need equal weight when the relevant credibility of the deniers side is so lacking in terms of the science. Like it or not Eric, as far as the science goes, the denier side is severely lacking. Why do you think that is? There are two options. 1. its a concerted conspiracy by scientists and journals to maintain the consensus position because of some perceived benefit in terms of research funding, or 2. Deniers are wrong. Either way, the credibility of the denier side is shot. You are either a conspiracy theorist or you are wrong and as such you don’t deserve a spot at the same table. The other thing that needs to happen is the teaching of science and critical thinking needs to be improved and I’m not talking about climate science or biology or physics but the scientific method and scientific conventions. With critical thinking skills people are more able to distinguish good science from bad. That way when people see Anthony Watts equating “blog review” with peer review they will be more inclined to recognise it as bullshit. That way they will be able to recognise special interest blabber repeated ad nauseum by idealogues and idiot bloggers for what it is.

  2. uknowispeaksense says:

    WUWT reposted that from Andrew (dog astrology journal is on my list and its great!) Poptech. What is interesting is the very first comment at poptech by some idiot calling SkS people “alarmist jihadists” and saying that because comments are premoderated on most denier blogs anyone speaking against them can just be blacklisted. Nothing like an admission that wilful ignorance and stifling freedom of speech is the way to go for these fools.

    • john byatt says:

      I loved in the incense filled room bit,,Eh Eric when are you going to put up your other claimed quotes, re Arctic, Gore and Hansen ?

      You do not have any do you?, all a load of codswallop?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Pretty feeble John. Hansen praised the Chinese government, and claimed their political model was our best hope for solving the climate crisis. This is different from calling for a dictatorship, in the same way that Bill Clinton told the truth about not having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

        By all accounts, the Clinton’s whatsit did not actually penetrate Lewinsky’s thingy, so in a purely technical sense, Clinton was telling the truth.

        But hey, who’s splitting hairs?

        And I notice you didn’t respond to my other link, in which David Suzuki demands that politicians who ignore climate science (by which he means his views) be thrown in jail. Here it is again, to save you the trouble of finding it for yourself.

      • john byatt says:

        Stop the sidestepping and post the comment of Hansen calling for a dictatorship
        post the comment of gore claiming that arctic ice would be gone by now
        post the “numerous” claims that the arctic would be melted by now

        and Suzuki

        “hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally,

        now cough up with the quotes or admit your deception,

  3. john byatt says:

    Here is the Hansen quote,

    ‘I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time, China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient.'”

    anyone who reads that as a call for a dictatorship needs to get on medication.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hansen is just being a little shy. If you think praising a vicious dictatorship while disparaging democratic governance is not the same as calling for a dictatorship, then you’re the one who needs the medication.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Here is a reference to Al Gore’s prediction.

      I was slightly out with my timing sorry – he suggested 5 – 7 years, or by 2014, there was a 75% chance the arctic would be ice free in the Summer months.–again.html

      I guess we’ll just have to wait 2 years and see if he is right.

      • john byatt says:

        A 75% chance in 7 years and you claimed that he said that the ice free summer would have been by now

        Do you understand what a 75& chance means? it does not mean a certainty,

        five to seven years on a story from 2009, is 2014 to 2016.

        but there is still no quote is there?, just the daily Maul’s word for what he actually said

        I would not call you a sceptic eric, I would call you gullible.

        If you cannot provide actual quotes Eric then stop making claims that you cannot support,

        This is not WUWT, where any crap is accepted by the choir

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        I’ll ignore the fact that your reference is a secondary reference and not source material and I’ll even assume that it is accurate (the daily mail pfffftttt). Anyway, my mechanic is an extremely vocal critic of climate science and he has predicted that we will have an ice age beginning next year. It’s amazing what all you deniers believe.

        see how that works?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here’s a video of Al Gore’s speech, just for you.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          As I said, despite the fact that you had provided a secondary source I would accept that it was accurate. I still maintain that my mechanics position is an accurate reflection of all deniers. Wouldn’t you agree?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Noted: this is a 2009 video associated with COP15.

          Direct quote: “some of the models suggest there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar Ice cap during summer… some of the summer months… could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years”.

          1/ Based upon the statements of a researcher at the US Naval Post-Graduate School. So Gore is repeating the claims of the US military!
          3/ We are not at the end of the projected 5-7 years
          2/ Note the use of the probability – 75% is used to qualify the claim – it is not a definitive statement.

          Gore states “we need to wait and see”.

          I believe there are many variables, and exact predictions are to some extent meaningless: this is the usual denier tactic of demanding the impossible of science.

          As I suspected – you have created a straw-man argument. Which is pretty much what deneirs do. Cherry pick, misrepresent and fast-talk. And all I had to do was watch the video… not even do any secondary research.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Al Gore’s prediction was nonsense. There was never a 75% probability of a melt, even the scientist Al Gore quoted objected to the misuse of his work.

          If I predicted that there is a 75% chance that tomorrow definitive proof will emerge the moon is made of cheese, does the 25% butt covering margin get me off the hook for making such a ridiculous assertion? I think not.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Like the ridiculous assertion by my mechanic? You can keep ignoring me and I will keep reminding you. My mechanic thinks the world is going to move into an ice age next year. Do you subscribe to his assertion? He’s a denier, and a non-expert, therefore he is represenatative all deniers. I suspect you are avoiding the answer because you have just enough intelligence to see what the outcome is.
          You know full well that Gore is not an expert and you know full well that his views are not representative of actual experts. The adult thing to do is admit your childish game and move on.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Once again these ridiculous strawmen – all “deniers” are x (fill in the insult).

          Personally I do think there is cause for concern – we may be entering a new Maunder scale solar minimum. If history is any guide, the expected cooling may exacerbate food shortages and increase political unrest.

          To mitigate the risk to my family, we’ve moved from Europe (which in any case is descending into economic chaos, no small thanks to their obsession with alternative energy) back to my native Australia – the Northern part, away from all those cold winters we seem to be experiencing lately.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Well done on completely avoiding the point. Here’s the thing Eric. Your whole point of bringing up Al Gore is your own strawman that somehow he is representative of our position, which he isn’t. He isn’t a recognised expert on climate and therefore we take anything he says with a grain of salt. My mechanic is not a strawman because my intent is not to paint all deniers with the same brush as him. I am merely using him as an example of the very thing that you are doing with Al Gore. So, tell me Eric, why mention Al Gore at all, knowing that he isn’t an expert?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m glad you agree Gore is a purveyor of nonsense.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Your refusal to answer direct questions is childish and rude and has become tiresome. It was a simple question. grow up.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Some alarmists seem to think Gore is important, so I thought I’d include him as an example of someone in your camp who grossly exaggerates even what some scientists are saying about AGW.

          So – we are agreed Al Gore is a purveyor of nonsense, are we not?

      • john byatt says:

        If you mean fat Al Gore

        Gavin Schmidt NASA, ” overall Gore gets the science pretty right”

        still not answering questions are you?, it is a common trait of the deniers

  4. john byatt says:

    Used up my gigs for month, too slow, so I will accept that the 2014/2016 is what he said, here is another actual quote made in Australia,

    ‘In fifty years the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in
    summer. We know how to solve global warming.
    What we need are political decisions, passion
    and bravery.”

  5. john byatt says:

    So Eric you got the timing of the Gore quote wrong
    you have no quote of Hansen calling for a dictatorship

    how will you go with this one?

    Eric Worrall says:
    September 26, 2012 at 1:27 am
    Go on John, give us an “ice free Arctic” prediction. The string of failed ice free predictions by alarmists is long and embarrassing.

  6. sailrick says:

    In 2007 the IPCC projected the Arctic might be ice free in summer by the end of the century.

    That is definitely not alarmist, based on the current state of the sea ice.

    They actually understimated it by several decades.

  7. john byatt says:

    Eric, “Eric Worrall says:
    September 26, 2012 at 1:27 am
    Go on John, give us an “ice free Arctic” prediction. The string of failed ice free predictions by alarmists is long and embarrassing.”

    stop making a fool of yourself

    75% chance of rain tomorrow
    75% chance that the operation will be a success
    75% chance that arctic will reach an ice free state in 2016 based on modeling

    well guess what, It is very possible that arctic volume will reach zero by 2016

    No volume= no extent and no area

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I’ll still be here in 2016 – I shall remind you of this prediction.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric, “Personally I do think there is cause for concern – we may be entering a new Maunder scale solar minimum. If history is any guide, the expected cooling may exacerbate food shortages and increase political unrest.”

        like to give a reference paper for the cooling period that you believe we are entering.?

      • john byatt says:

        First paper FAIL

        Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun2, 3. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimumread the papers, one is on atmospheric circulation shift and the other just on a sol

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I don’t see how repeating what I said constitutes a fail.

          I made two points, one of which is there is a link between solar activity and climate, and that we seem to be entering a new solar minimum. Then I provided two out of several possible papers to back these points.

      • john byatt says:

        so I will ask you again please provide references for the cooling period that you believe we are entering.

        neither paper links cooling to any predicted maunder minimum and for good reason, It is known as AGW

  8. john byatt says:

    Eric stop peddling crap “Al Gore’s prediction was nonsense. There was never a 75% probability of a melt, even the scientist Al Gore quoted objected to the misuse of his work.”

  9. john byatt says:

    Feulner & rahmstorf 2010

    what would happen to global temperature if we experienced a Maunder minimum in the next decade

    Answer, fuck all the globe would continue to warm

  10. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:45 am
    I don’t see how repeating what I said constitutes a fail.

    I made two points, one of which is there is a link between solar activity and climate, and that we seem to be entering a new solar minimum. Then I provided two out of several possible papers to back these points.

    because cupcake, neither paper is about cooling from a maunder minimum expected or not

    and in this reply you do not even mention cooling, now do you have a paper that links expected cooling from a new maunder minimum this century?

  11. john byatt says:

    Basically Eric, you have learned what you know from denier sites that present garbage for the likes of you to swallow
    SO you come here full of confidence only to find that everything that you believe is absolute crap,

    I am done with you , spend a few years actually following science, maybe there is still hope for you

    • Eric Worrall says:

      John, I’ve found the last few hours quite interesting.

      You asked for a peer reviewed paper predicting global cooling, I provided it.

      Click to access 1202.1954v1.pdf

      I also provided a link to a Climategate email which suggests that many in the solar terrestrial physics community believe the sun is responsible for 20th century climate change – which kind of kicks a hole in hype about a “consensus” of scientists supporting the alarmist CO2 theory.

      The experience has not convinced me that what I believe is crap.

      What it has shown me is that you guys aren’t used to alternative viewpoints – you see people who have other views in terms of cartoon caricatures, rather than understanding there are a wide range of different views.

      Here is an interesting interview by one of the greatest living Physicists, Freeman Dyson, which among other things, discusses why spending too much time in an intellectually isolated community can lead to mistakes.

      Regarding the future, I think I’ll be a regular visitor. This has been an interesting and at times entertaining experience, and most of you were polite, which is the keystone of civilised discourse.

  12. Sou says:

    This thread seems to have gone off topic.

    I just wanted to ask when has Tony ever “respected the privacy of the individual”? It’s never been his habit. Not respecting privacy is one his classic bullying tactics – and it looks as if we can add lying through his teeth to his many character flaws, if he actually claimed that.

    Anyway, now that he’s been exposed as an ideologically motivated denier, I doubt he’ll be used as a spokesperson for deniers by reputable MSM ever again. Except to send him up, which is pretty easy to do 🙂

  13. catweazle666 says:

    Gavin Schmidt NASA, ” overall Gore gets the science pretty right”

    I just thought it was worth repeating….

  14. john byatt says:

    Hi Sou, the reason that I take them on is to learn what new nonsense that they might have, I write hundreds of letters in reply to them in QLD papers, so it is good to see what likely new stuff that they come up with. Eric has pretty much just repeated the old lines, nothing new.

    I would make a bet though, that even though Eric now realizes that Phil Jones has updated the Statistical warming since 1995 comment, Eric will still repeat the Phil Jones 2010 ” no statistical warming since 1995 nonsense in the future,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      A “warming” trend which is bumping along the edge of statistical significance is hardly a global emergency.

      • Nick says:

        If that was all there is to climate knowledge,then maybe your view would be reasonable….but it ain’t.

      • john byatt says:

        From his facepalm comment, his ignorance is obvious, he sees it as whether it is warming or not and by how much.

        In both cases the warming is identical, the longer time series just allows Jones to say that the probability of the warming happening due to natural variability is now less than one chance in twenty,

        even the press release laid it out pretty clearly, straight over their head

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense. Warming attribution is a joke – as Judith Curry, co-author of the BEST study says, statements are being made on this subject which are without scientific foundation.

          Essentially alarmists are taking a sharp warming trend, which ended 15 years ago (give or take 0.1c), despite increasing CO2 forcing, and are saying “we don’t know what else is causing it, so it must be CO2”.

          They are ignoring the fact that the 20th century saw a solar grand maximum, the highest level of solar activity for thousands of years.

          The evidence is piling up that CO2 is not the only, or even the main driver of global climate.

          For example, this peer reviewed paper investigates the connection between cloudiness and Forbush events. Forbush events are abrupt changes in cosmic ray flux, caused by solar flares.

          Click to access astra-7-315-2011.pdf

          I can provide several similar papers, each of which confirm a connection between solar activity and cloud cover.

  15. john byatt says:

    Careful mike, I think that Sou may be a double agent

    .good therapy

  16. Eric Worrall said:

    I’m surprised anyone has the front to quote GISS these days – Hansen has been repeatedly busted “adjusting” the data.


    Folks, the above material that Worrall posted here is complete garbage. He should be embarrassed for having posted it. And hopefully, the material that I’m posting below will embarrass *and* educate him.

    Someone with decent coding skills can easily prove, with not all that much programming/data-crunching effort, that the NASA results do *not* depend on data “adjustments”. A basic gridding/averaging algorithm that validates the NASA results with *raw* (i.e. not “adjusted”) temperature data is not very difficult to code up.

    In fact, I have in my hot little hands just such a program — it is a *one page* ###
    python script that was posted to a few weeks ago. I took it, modified it slightly so that folks could more easily perform an “apples to apples” comparison of the script output with the official NASA results, and added a bunch of comments that explain how to run it.

    You can download the script here:

    With the script, you can compare the results you get from raw *and* adjusted data with the official NASA results. You can also compare rural vs. urban data results. Download the script, run it per the instructions provided (the instructions even tell you how to get the data) and see how amazingly closely your own results match NASA’s. The script writes the global-average temperature results in .csv format for easy plotting with Excel or OpenOffice.

    Seriously, folks, a basic program that allows you to examine the effects of data “adjustments” is all of one page long. But in all of the years that deniers have been attacking the NASA global-temperature results with their spurious claims, not a single denier was willing or able to write a simple program (like the one at the above link) to test those claims.

    Laziness? Incompetence? Dishonesty?
    Or all of the above?

    ### excluding comments and diagnostic print statments.

    • john byatt says:

      I would love to know what thought processes occur for them to be able to go from

      “It is not statistically significant, so i am right”


      “if it is statistically significant, then i am still right”


    • uknowispeaksense says:


    • Eric Worrall says:

      Here is the ushcn adjustement from NOAA’s own website:-

      To me it looks like a massive hockey stick shaped adjustment to otherwise relatively flat temperatures, but I’m sure you will find a way to rationalise it.

      • Worrall,

        Two points.

        1) A competent person will be able to read the information that NOAA has provided about the USHCN adjustments and will understand why those adjustments were both justified and necessary.

        2) That same competent person should be able to figure out that for global-average calculations, the adjustments largely cancel each other out. Raw and adjusted data produce very similar global-average results.

        So download the script I linked to above, run both raw and adjusted GHCN data through it, and plot the raw and adjusted results vs. the official NASA results. Detailed instructions are provided in the comments in the script file. Think you can do it?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          RE the code, when I get a few hours to kill, I’ll run it and examine it in detail.

          But “the adjustments cancel out” does not justify the adjustments. Nor does the nonsensical excuses about TOBs which are used to justify adjustments of that magnitude.

    • Cugel says:

      As I understand it, the denier position is that Hansen personally alters the figures every day to values agreed with Al Gore. Only then are they released to the public. Or something like that, there may be minions involved, I don’t have the pay-grade to know the details.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I have no idea how or where the alterations occurred. I suspect what happened is Hansen took adjusted numbers from other sources, called them “raw” (because to him they are “raw” input), then applied some mild adjustments of his own to produce the “adjusted” numbers.

        That way he can honestly claim to be presenting “raw” temperature data, even though it is nothing of the sort. But if this is the case, I can’t see how Hansen could fail to be aware that there are other reasonable interpretations of what he is doing.

        Its a shame alarmists can’t simply open source their entire method and data, from end to end. That would clear up a lot of difficulties.

  17. Moth says:

    Followed the links and looked into the material.. It’s all ClimateGate quote mining all over again. I’m happy for my comments in the forum to have been known; mainly having fun at Monckton’s expense.

    If anything, with how dirty and manipulative the contrarian movement is becoming, it just stands as warning that no matter how private the discussion may be at the time, one much note that it is on file and may not remain hidden. Express the point clearly and accurately or else some nitwit is likely to blow it out of all proportions (ie. the “conspiracy to save humanity” – as if the contributors of SkS had the ability to do so or continued that line of reasoning beyond the initial comment. It’s a last ditch resort by dolts unable to demonstrate via the scientific method any pivotal flaws in the relevant science – if you can’t approach the data, due to ignorance, why not attack the communicators instead? Pathetic..)

    • Nick says:

      Pseudo-skeptics have never had or attempted to make a real case. The mass of scientific literature is against them,they’ve never conducted an honest literature review such as done by national academies or the IPCC involving thoudands of papers and hundres of compilers. It’s always facetious,after-the-fact rationalising,and the undue elevation of crap to credible status. Filtering of the literature,then filtering of ‘useful bits’ out of individual papers.

      Watts is at it again,taking a small piece of info out of a paper on Holocene glacial extents in Glacier National Park. While he does mention some of the conclusions,he first highlights a bit of incidental info about one glacier’s ice loss in the 1930s and unduly elevates it.

      He completely fails to dispassionately discuss the paper as a work. Because he lacks the skills, and he is not interested in getting someone competent to write about it.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Skeptics don’t receive anything like the monstrous levels of funding directed to big green, so we pick at the more obvious BS.

      • Nick says:

        Rubbish,Eric. ‘Big Green’ is emotive talk. You are attempting a false equivalence, Jo Nova -style, between science funding directed at geoscience,and money spent on lobbying and PR by industry front groups like Heartland.. There is no equivalence.

        There have been millions directed to various lobby groups over recent years. I can tell you for a fact that Heartland, the American Tradition Institute and the like have adequate funding to do a GENUINE literature review,IF they are willing. A few hundred thousand on a couple of science grad researchers of a couple of years would come up with a lot of references…truth is those references,handled honestly, do not favour you faux-sceptics…and the example I gave of a Wattsian misdirection illustrates the actual way fake institutes prefer to do their science reviews.

        All you’ve cited are rubbishy curve-fits by Humlum et al 2012,which cites defunct papers,makes untenable extrapolations and poses no mechanistic explanation, and even cites the incredible David Archibald,mining investor and amateur astrologer. That’s ‘obvious BS’ that you’ve failed to ‘pick at’.

  18. Sou says:

    Watts cycles through the most effective explainers of climate science in turn. By his recent outbursts, he’s acknowledging SkS as being very effective in combatting denialism – on a par with Profs Mann, Hansen, Trenberth – which is a big compliment to SkS and well-earned IMO.

    On another tack, the WUWT crowd don’t know what to do with Jeff Condon, who’s written a piece effectively denying he denies climate science.

    Tony wrote an article by Jeff, who’d been telling Prof L that a sentence/citation in his recent paper that mentions Jeff is ambiguous or incorrect and asked could he remove it. By his account, the authors have agreed to alter the sentence.

    So Jeff ID’s anti-science endeavours are not outright denial in his mind. However it does seem to be his ideology that drives him to strenuous efforts to try to poke holes in the science and delay mitigation efforts. And he does associate himself with climate science deniers not people who accept the scientific findings and want to heal the planet.

    This undoubtedly results in more cognitive dissonance among those motivated by extremist ideology to reject science.

    BTW – Did anyone notice that Watts has implied that RPielkeSr is a twit? Refer recent headline. Watts is definitely a twit and welcomed RPielkeSr to ‘twitland’. Watt a pair of twits.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      So what do you think of Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) and his suggestion that alarmists need a conspiracy to save humanity?

      • Sou says:

        Sorry Eric, I haven’t been following your posts on this thread – nor read any of the stolen correspondence that you and others perv. If that cherry pick is a direct quote-mine from that stolen correspondence, then I wouldn’t try to impute any meaning. You’d have to go back to the author and the people in the conversation to find out. If I was pressed I’d say the author was making a wry attempt at a joke to make a point, and that he or she took the subject matter (global warming) very seriously.

        From reading WUWT, the extreme right wingers and conspiracy theorists that hang out there (the 99% of WUWT readers) are not good at nuance or understanding subtlety, and have a hard time with irony and humour (also maths, science, logic and reason – see some of the responses to the complete and utter nonsense that Bob Tisdale puts out). They also seem to be under a false impression about what constitutes science. The record of scientific knowledge is in science journals and is accumulated over time. You won’t get good answers to questions about nature and the universe in snippets of stolen private correspondence on denier websites.

        Incidentally, if you were to ask me to draw a conclusion from the couple of posts of yours on this thread that I’ve bothered to read, I’d be happy to do so. It wouldn’t mean much. I could also cherry pick and quote out of context to make some readers infer whatever I wanted them to infer. For example:

        Skeptics … receive … monstrous levels of funding … so we … BS

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I wonder if you would feel the same way about an unauthorised tobacco company leak which included a statement like “we need a conspiracy to save our business”?

          Here is a slightly more complete quote, so you can laugh at the humour.

          “So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.”

          You can get more complete context if you want from this link.

      • john byatt says:

        correct, he states that the conspiracy takes place in an incense filled room,

        I had a chuckle at it,

      • Sou says:

        Like I said: extreme right wingers and conspiracy theorists that hang out there (the 99% of WUWT readers) are not good at nuance or understanding subtlety, and have a hard time with irony and humour (also maths, science, logic and reason

        Sums it up pretty well. Eric seems to be putting himself in those categories too. Whether he’s just the former (right wing nutter) or also the latter (conspiracy nutter), I really couldn’t be bothered about.

      • john byatt says:

        Sou, it is fairly typical of creationists as well,

        There is an overlap but they remain tight lipped or deny their involvement

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Once again these nonsensical strawmen.

          Part of the reason I take an interest in climate issues is the appalling disservice alarmist scientific fraud is doing to the reputation of science.

          You are the ones who are opening the way for the creationists, with your perversion of scientific practice.

          Any creationist these day can simply point to classics like “Hide The Decline” to tarnish the arguments of their evolutionist opponents.

      • john byatt says:

        Notice that he did not bite until creationists were mentioned, does not even address Sou’s points.

        In calling the creationist jibe a strawman, he is in effect stating that just because someone is a creationist then their opinion should not be discounted,

        Great reply really

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Interestingly I have noticed many of the staunchest alarmists are people who had a religious upbringing, but lost their faith. Climate catastrophism seems to fill that yawning gap in their lives. A former friend certainly falls into this category, he is as committed to believing in the climate crisis as he once was to believing in the sky fairy.

          Anti-individualists tend to also find cover in the alarmist camp – your characterisation of critics as extreme right wingers is hilarious, given that some leading skeptics such as Steve McIntyre are socialists.

          Thankfully as a lifelong atheist, I don’t feel the need to believe in Climageddon.

      • john byatt says:

        I should have explained, Eric has used the Strawman arguement before, he actually uses it instead of ad hom, but that is just eric

  19. john byatt says:

    The lack of cohesion , claims that temperature trends result from dodgy adjustments
    then puts up a paper that uses some of those claimed dodgy adjustments in an attempt to link them to sunspot cycles, basically the temperature trend cannot be used unless they are only used to find some other reason than enhanced greenhouse effect for the current warming?

  20. Sou says:

    Eric, few regard your fringe group as unimportant. Immoral, ignorant, stupid, vain, egocentric, Dunning-Kruger are among the words that come to mind – some of which may apply to you as an individual, others won’t.

    Not everyone in the ‘fringe group’ is stupid and some have made their way or been paid for and got themselves into positions of influence. Particularly in the USA (more so than in more culturally sophisticated nations) where individualism is a creed and there is, in some quarters, a distinct lack of awareness or interest in maintaining a cohesive, thriving, prosperous society.

    You are part of a ‘fringe group’ that, for its own many and varied reasons, rejects science and is intent on continuing to pollute the atmosphere and oceans as quickly and as much as possible. Each person in your ‘fringe group’ has their own motivation that drives them, whether it’s ideology, ignorance, greed, fear of change, arrogance, lack of morals, short-termism or simply vested interest. In the extremes of your ‘fringe group’, it’s a tendency to reject anything that sounds ‘authoritative’ as a conspiracy.

    Not enough people point out the craziness in your ‘fringe group’ IMO.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You kindof missed my point Sou. Since Copenhagen and Climategate, we are not the fringe group anymore – you are.

      Noone important bothered to turn up to Rio, because increasingly, you don’t matter anymore.

      Even “green” Germany is engaging in a crash priority programme to commission 20 new coal fired generators, to replace their ageing nuclear assets.

      Glaciergate finished Asian interest in Climate issues, and with Asia forging ahead with massive fossil fuel driven industrialisation, America and the rest of the West has no choice but to follow in their tracks, or become the new global paupers.

      So you can be a big fish in a small pond of like minded believers, or you can venture into the outside world, engage with people of differing views, and try to work out where it all went so wrong.

  21. Sou says:

    Eric is narrowing down the possibilities. Ideological rejection – tick. Dunning-Kruger – tick. Wilful ignorance – tick. Anti-social – tick. Confirmation bias – tick. Logic fail – tick. Irrelevant – tick. Paranoid conspiracy theorist – not sure yet.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Look in the mirror Sou.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      give him time. I’ve been watching from the sidelines for awhile because his idiocy is too much for me. It’s great entertainment…..except I’m nearly out of popcorn. 10 points if you can get him to say “CO2 is plant food”

      • Sou says:

        Well, he has used the phrase “alarmist scientific fraud”, suggesting he subscribes to conspiracy theories like the “worldwide conspiracy among scientists of the past 200 years” and “more than 90% of scientists and around 70% of the human race belongs to a secret cult perpetrating a hoax on the 20% who don’t bother with science and the up to 10% who reject it”.

        You only have to look at where Eric gets his weird ideas from. It’s not from science.

      • john byatt says:

        Wonder what his views are on OWG?, that is a biggy for the fundies

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There has been the occasional call for stronger international cooperation to tackle Climate Change, which I find disturbing. I also find it amusing pretty much every UN climate body seems to want immunity from prosecution written into their charter – even bodies which aren’t properly part of the UN.


          But I think an attempt to form OWG in the forseeable future is unlikely. The spectacular ongoing disintegration of the European Union is a strong object lesson on what happens if you try to integrate too fast.

          In any case, your leaders are the bad guys – they cooperate with each other about as well as a bunch of cats thrown into a sack. That is the real reason why the climate conferences keep bombing out, they can’t figure out how to divvy up the loot.

      • Sou says:

        Eric wrote “your leaders are the bad guys” – where he is talking about “they can’t figure out how to divvy up the loot” in the context of UN climate conferences. (Another conspiracy?)

        So Eric isn’t from any of the UN countries. He must be from Taiwan, Kosovo or Vatican City, either that or he’s from another planet.

        I know which one is my guess 🙂

        Eric, take us to your leader!

      • john byatt says:

        Holy UNFCCC conspiracy batman

      • Sou says:

        Eric, before letting you in on any earthling business, I need to know what planet you’re from and who your leader is. For all we know you could be plotting to kill all we humans, mine earth resources and burn the planet’s fossils.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Do try to calm down dear, I know it must be confusing when you encounter views which differ from your own, after spending so much of your time with other members of the faith.

      • Sou says:

        Yes, can you blame me for being confused? I thought I was talking to a somewhat deluded fellow earthling. From what you’ve written I was wrong about the earthling part.

        You can clear up some of the confusion by telling us who your leaders are, Eric – and where they are from.

      • john byatt says:

        I think that his leaders had him in the UK but have now teleported him to northern Australia to escape the coming glaciation


      • Sou says:

        Thanks, John.

        My confusion could, if course, stem from neither of the particular ’causes’ discussed by me and alien Eric. Could just be all the incense 🙂

  22. Eric Worrall says:

    But it is plant food – any greenhouse grower will tell you.

    Here’s an advisory from the Canadian government, to keep your greenhouse CO2 levels high, to promote growth.

    I’ve often wondered what would happen if you ever tried to take CO2 enhancers away from the Chelsea Flower Show set.

    Here’s my favourite CO2 enhancer. It burns natural gas, and throws away the heat.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      “CO2 is plant food” brings you into my world Eric. Plant physiology and ecology happen to be my specialty. Now before we engage in swapping ideas, how about you tell me a little bit about, oooh I don’t know, let’s start with something simple? How about the way that C4 plants differ from C3 plants in the way they not only assimilate Carbon but also the preferential isotopes of Carbon for each system. We can then move onto issues of water conductance within leaves controlling turgor and where both heat and water stress fit into that equation. Then we will look at nitrification and how raised CO2 and temperature alter that, before moving on to how you think natural systems will cope when various species respond differently to increased CO2. I might also get a little bit into experimental design and the idea of extrapolating greenhouse results to the outside environment where variables are not controlled. Keep in mind this is pretty simple stuff. Even my early teenage daughter understands it. If you can demonstrate that you can cope with these things we might move onto hormonal imbalances in major foodcrops resulting in reduced fertility due to raised CO2. But anyway, like I said, let’s start with C3 and C4. So, what is the name of the process that starts with the carboxylation of three molecules of ribulose-1,5-biphosphate to produce the same plus 1 molecule of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        So Greenhouse growers are making a mistake when they raise CO2 levels to 1000ppm+?

        Quick you better tell them – all those millions spent on CO2 enhancement devices which are being wasted.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          You are out of your league. Thanks for playing. The answer to my question is “the Calvin Cycle” which is central to photosynthesis. You actually know less than my 13 year old daughter about basic plant biology. So, the chances of you understanding why you cannot extrapolate glasshouse to ecosytems is nil. Go and educate yourself before you speak moron.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given that the current CO2 starvation of the planet is geologically recent (for the last 30 million years or so), and plants thrived quite well in previous epochs, at CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, I don’t see any cause for concern – despite your pathetic mumbo jumbo to the contrary.

          The carboniferous age, for example, saw CO2 levels at around 800ppm – twice what they are today.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          non sequiter. So, now we can add evolution and geologic time to the list of things you don’t understand. And the “mumbo jumbo” is called science. Thanks for demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance. Educate yourself and see a psychologist about the Dunning Kruger effect that has gripped you. I’m outta here,This headgear is no longer working.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I see – given the evidence that:-

          a) Plants grow much more vigorously in enhanced CO2 greenhouses (1000ppm+).

          b) Plants thrived in previous epochs in natural enhanced CO2 conditions.

          Your expert opinion is that if CO2 levels rise a few hundred ppm, plants will wither and die.

          Yes, I can see how you would draw such a conclusion from the available evidence.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          You could join a circus with psychic skills like that… a clown. It’s not all about CO2 with plant growth fool. There are dozens of limiting factors but your simpleton quips tell me you lack the ability to understand, and let’s face it, you don’t want to understand. For some, despite the fact it is a juvenile respoinse, wilful ignorance is easier. Go and crawl back under your rock.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If you took the time to construct reasoned arguments, rather than blustering and relying on an appeal to authority to win your case, then you might look less silly.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Eric, you put forward greenhouse CO2 machines as your argument. I ask you a simple question which you answered with an inane question about people wasting money on making CO2 for greenhouses. You make simplistic statements that you probably think are smart but to anyone with even a rudimentry understanding of plant science knows are ridiculous and you think I look silly? Ok, you keep telling yourself that.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,greenhouse growers don’t just adjust the CO2 level and ignore other inputs. That is the essence of uknow’s comment,which you’d acknowledge if you’d admit that you can’t paper over knowledge gaps with rhetoric.
        The planet is not “CO2 starved” now,nor was it before we began burning fossil fuels.
        These are fundamentals that underlie the fact that “more CO2 = net good” is simplistic.

        We’re living in the tectonic now, not with the continental arrangements of the
        Carboniferous…that might just help suggest that climate response will not be analogous.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We’re living in the tectonic now, not with the continental arrangements of the Carboniferous…that might just help suggest that climate response will not be analogous.

          Certainly greenhouse growers optimise other conditions, but given the evidence that plants have thrived in previous epochs of high CO2 levels, with many different continental arrangements, and that modern plants thrive in enhanced CO2 levels, I would suggest the most reasonable null case (the most reasonable base case assumption) is that, all else being equal, plants respond well to increased CO2 levels, and that any other assertion needs to be backed with evidence.

          So “CO2 is plantfood” is a reasonable statement – it is other factors (e.g. predicted enhanced storm activity) which might counteract the beneficial effect of enhanced CO2.

          It follows from this that any suggestion increased CO2 will be detrimental to plants hinges on factors other than the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth.

  23. Sou says:

    Tony, who as seen in the the above article lied about ‘respecting privacy’ has ‘outed’ another person today when they pointed out his “Look, a squirrel” article.

    He’s not just a science denying twit, he’s a bully with a really nasty streak.

  24. […] not only a sanctimonius prick but possibly one of the biggest arseholes getting around. Apart from going back on his word about revealing the private discussions illegally obtained from SkS, he has now taken to revealing […]

  25. john byatt says:

    Ah how can we explain it

    but many countries have started down the road to mitigation, best we ignore them?

  26. john byatt says:

    Over 100 comments, where is the Godwin?
    here it is

    Eric Worrall

    Climate NAZIs
    Vendicar Decarian, if you would kill someone for holding a different belief to yourself, you are a NAZI.


  27. john byatt says:

    Over 100 comments, where is the Godwin?

    here it is

    Eric Worrall
    Climate NAZIs
    Vendicar Decarian, if you would kill someone for holding a different belief to yourself, you are a NAZI.


  28. Folks, here’s a very nice illustration of the incredible robustness of the global temperature record.

    It’s a plot of global-average temperature results that I computed from just 32 rural stations scattered around the world. I computed results from both raw and adjusted data, and plotted my results along with the official NASA GHCN results.

    Here’s a link to the plot:

    So the obvious question that comes up is, how did I choose those stations?

    Simple — I divided up the globe into grid-cells of approximately 4000×4000 km. (A total of 32 grid-cells.) I searched each grid-cell for the *rural* station with the longest temperature record. That’s it. No cherry-picking. I didn’t look at any of the station data during the selection process.

    The global-average computations were also quite simple. I simply computed the average monthly anomalies for each station relative to their standard NASA 1951-1980 baselines, and averaged all the stations’ monthly anomalies together for each year. That’s it!

    As you can see from the plot, those data “adjustments” that Worrall has been going on about really don’t change the global-average results very much.

    For the purposes of computing long-term global trends, the temperature network is massively oversampled. You can get solid results from a tiny fraction of the thousands of stations that NASA uses.

    Now, folks should be asking themselves why Watts and his apparatchiks, in all the years that they’ve been attacking the global-temperature record, never figured out how to do any of this. I mean, it’s really not that hard — give me some bright students who’ve had a couple of semesters of computer programming, and I could easily teach them how to tackle a project like this.

    And one more thing: I didn’t have to file a single FOI request to get the data and documentation I needed.

  29. Quick followup to eliminate any possible confusion about my global temperature plot:

    The official NASA/GISS (“meteorological stations index”) results are plotted in bright green. They were copy/pasted directly from the NASA/GISS web-site.

    My own results computed from raw temperature data are plotted in dark blue.

    My own results computed from adjusted temperature data are plotted in red.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I had a play with the software, and an interesting problem emerged.

      I decided to restrict the chart to North American stations. Since there was no easy way to select American stations, I did this by only including stations between 24 to 72 North, 64 to 179 West – a box which approximates the coordinates of North America.

      This created a graph with a similar level of correspondence between raw data and adjusted data, to your graph.

      Now we know from the NOAA website, that they are applying an adjustment which peaks at around +0.5c for recent years.

      Since the raw and adjusted temperatures correspond in the series I plotted for North American stations, and there is no large discrepancy between GISS and NOAA figures,


      But what else would you expect from someone like Hansen?


        But what else would you expect from someone like Hansen?

        Hansen doesn’t own or control the raw data in question. It comes directly from the National Meteorological Service offices of some 180 independent nations. TOB and other corrections have *not* been applied to that data.

        Folks, it’s just this simple. Go to

        You will see (among other files) the following files:


        The .qca.tar.gz file contains the *adjusted* data. The .qcu.tar.gz file contains the *raw* data. It just isn’t that difficult to tell them apart.

        The results that I posted above were computed directly from data taken from those files.

        Let me emphasize that the data in the .qcu.tar.gz file has not had any TOB or other adjustments applied to it by either NASA or NOAA. Anyone who insists otherwise is an idiot.

        BTW, I have written software that allows folks to plot raw vs. adjusted data for individual stations (via a pointy-clicky interface based on the QGIS geographical visualization utility) and compute global-average temperature estimates from various selections of temperature stations.

        I keep a working snapshot copy at — it’s an ongoing under-construction “hobby project” with some legacy “dead code” and some unfinished features that haven’t been “plumbed in” yet, so FMMV (Folks’ Mileage May Vary).

        The software is a bit of a chore to set up (familiarity with the Unix command-line environment would be most helpful), but once it is set up and running, it can be a useful visual tool for debunking the favorite denier claims about the global temperature record. Instructions describing how to get it all up and running can be found in a couple of README files. Since I “borrowed” a lot of GPL-licensed software for the project, folks should treat it all like GPL V2 code (which is free for unrestricted distribution).

        And like I said, anyone who claims that the raw data has been “adjusted” by NASA/Hansen is an *idiot*. A complete *idiot*. Full stop.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The raw data vs adjusted data does not differ by 0.5c, or anything like it.

          This means the adjustment of 0.5c (which includes TOBs) indicated by the NOAA website has already been applied to the GISS “raw” data.

          You can’t explain that discrepancy, can you? Only my explanation – that the NASA GISS raw data already contains substantial adjustments – makes sense.

          So you start by making an excuse about GISS not controlling the data, then call me an idiot.

          Anything to avoid facing the truth.

      • Nick says:

        It’s time for Eric to acknowledge that he has been misled and lied to by folk like Watts and Goddard. Eric,these people have agendas first and foremost. Reality is a mere detail that can be dispensed with whenever necessary. Watts has even been a co-author on papers that have fundamentally disproven his pet theories,but he will not let them go.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The data I’m using to demonstrate my point come from the NOAA and NASA sites.

          That is the problem with fiddling the truth – you have to be very careful to check with fellow liars to keep the story consistent, otherwise people notice the lies.

  30. Following up — you will find significant differences between the raw and adjusted data for many individual stations if you plot the data for just those individual stations.

    For example, look at the raw and adjusted data for station# 311677 (Chapel Hill 2 W). You will see significant differences — the raw station data obviously does *not* have the adjustments applied to the “adjusted” data.

    But when you start averaging data from globally-scattered stations together, you will see that the average results for the raw and adjusted data converge quite rapidly as you add more stations.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Try reading more slowly, you will make fewer mistakes.

      The problem is not the data diverging too much. The problem is the North American raw vs adjusted data did not diverge enough, when compared to the NOAA adjustment.

      This indicates the GISS “raw” data already contains at least some substantial adjustments.

  31. Invalid comparison — USHCN is a subset of GHCN — even within the USA. There are many GHCN stations in the USA that are not part of the USHCN network. The USHCN adjustments are specific to the USCHN subset of USA-based GHCN stations.

    GHCN stations that are not part of the USHCN network do not have the TOB correction applied to their data (insufficient metadata to do that).

    We have another case of an apples vs. oranges comparison here.

    • Following up — the notion that the raw data have somehow been “adjusted” by Hansen is even more delusional when you consider:

      1) The raw monthly-mean data are put out as soon as they are available (i.e. in “real time”). Data samples generally can’t be adjusted/homogenized until you have a number of years of “future data” to compare your “current” data with. NASA does not have a crystal ball that predicts future station moves or future changes in temperature measurement equipment.

      2) Any post-hoc “adjustments” to raw data would easily be detected, since there are thousands of copies of previously-released raw data sitting on hard-drives and in desk drawers all over the world to compare the “current” raw data releases with.

      3) For those who don’t trust the monthly data, GHCN *daily* data are also available — computing your own “monthly mean” results from the daily data is not very hard. The notion that somehow NASA/Hansen might be manipulating/adjusting raw data from thousands of stations quickly and sneakily enough to avoid detection *and* delays in releasing the daily data is simply beyond delusional.

      The bottom line is, the raw data are released in “real time” on a simple “pass through” basis as soon as they are received from the National Met Services all over the world.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Given that NOAA produces similar processed temperature series to GISS, your argument is:-

        NOAA raw + 0.5c = GISS raw + (at most) 0.1c


        NOAA raw = GISS raw.

        Oh I forgot to add your faith based assertion that it is inconceivable that GISS would exaggerate or bend the truth.

        So, your argument is:-

        NOAA raw + 0.5 = GISS raw + blind faith

        I can’t say I agree, but whatever floats your boat…

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I see, your suggestion is that NOAA is getting it wrong.

      Since GISS and NOAA produce a similar processed temperature series from what you assert is different raw data,

      You are suggesting that NOAA is rightly adding an adjustment up to 0.5c to bring it into line with GISS figures.

      If this is correct, the American taxpayers should save some money and shut down the rubbish NOAA climate unit.

  32. Folks, there is yet *another* way to verify that the raw data supplied by NASA is really *raw* data. Data from all GHCN stations in all nations is public-domain — free (or very cheap) for the asking.

    If anyone seriously thinks that NASA is monkeying with the raw data, then it would be a simple matter of contacting the National Met Offices of a number of different nations and getting the data directly from them (bypassing NASA/Hansen).

    Then it would be simple matter of comparing the data you got directly from the Met offices with the data downloaded from the NASA/GISS web-site.

    Such an investigation would cost virtually nothing — a few phone calls, a few emails, maybe token reimbursements to the Met offices for their time/expenses involved in sending you the data directly…. then a few man-hours of programming/analysis time to be billed to the investigation…. The Koch Bros, Heartland Institute, etc. could fund such an investigation out of petty cash.

    Once again, anyone who thinks that Hansen has been altering the raw data is completely delusional. As in weapons-grade tinfoil-hat delusional. It would be ridiculously easy to catch Hansen out on this.

    As for the USHCN vs. GHCN adjustments — USHCN takes advantage of additional metadata not available with vanilla GHCN stations. So the USHCN network will provide a better USA-specific temperature record than just the vanilla GHCN stations will. There really isn’t anything mysterious or sinister about any of this…

    But on a global-scale, it just doesn’t matter much at all — no matter how you slice/dice the global data, you will get very similar global-average results every time. The continental USA occupies such a small percentage of the global surface area that the “disputed” adjustments get diluted to almost nothing anyway.

    Anyway, it’s time to wrap this up — we have on record here yet another nice public demonstration of the delusional thinking that drives global-warming denial.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks Caer – agree. The information is publicly available, and always has been. In a sense the BEST study has already done that.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      What we have discovered is solid evidence something doesn’t add up.

      I suspect the reason is what NASA is presenting as “raw” data is not really “raw” temperature readings – that it has already been adjusted, perhaps by the data providers.

      If I am right, in a technical sense, Hansen is telling the truth. From Hansen’s perspective the data is “raw” – it is his raw input data for his climate models. But at the same time, the data is not “raw” in a sense that outsiders would understand it – it contains adjustments.

      Any other theory has to account for why two separate American government organisations can produce essentially the same output, by applying very different adjustments to the “raw” data.

  33. rubber taster says:

    This guy Worrall is just a nutter troll – see his comments below:

    32. Eric Worrall Says:
    November 1st, 2010 at 8:43 am
    Guys, try to be sympathetic to the Warmist Climate NAZIs.
    Like good Germans led astray by Hitler’s fake Eugenics crisis, Warmists cant see they are the bad guys. The nature of crisis is you sometimes do things you would never consider doing in normal circumstances, and they believe we are in a crisis.
    When good Germans did the unthinkable, they thought they were saving Mankind from terminal genetic degeneracy, by restoring the natural balance – by culling people who (they thought) would never survive and procreate if they weren’t protected, by unnaturally soft lives provided by civilisation. In their minds, they weren’t killing Jews, they were killing genetic degenerates – people who, if they survived, would drag us all down, by procreating and burdening future generations with the care of their feeble offspring.
    When Warmists vote to do the unthinkable – condemning poor people to choose between freezing or starving, when their energy bills soar, and condemning people to starve in the third world, when their land is diverted to biofuel production – they believe that such sacrifices are part of the grim cost of preventing far greater casualties, which would occur if global warming was allowed to spiral out of control.
    They cant see, they dare not see, that they have simply been manipulated into condoning evil – that the greater evil they fear is an illusion, and that they have caused terrible harm, by supporting the bad guys.
    In fact, the more damage done by climate “mitigation” measures, the harder this admission of fault and guilt will become.
    Hitler understood this – this is why his treatment of Jews became progressively worse throughout his rule. The more brutal his treatment of “degenerates” became, the more impossible it became for people who helped him to admit what they were doing was wrong.
    The people who are manipulating the climate alarmist movement also understand this burden – they are continuing their biofuel subsidies, despite abundant evidence (see my previous post) that biofuel production does terrible harm to people who can barely afford to feed themselves, even without the added burden of reduced food cultivation, when land is diverted to biofuels.
    So give the footsoldier climate NAZIs sympathy, and help them to understand that, if they find the courage to realise they have made the wrong choices, they will receive our forgiveness and understanding, not our hate.

  34. rubber taster says:

    He gets worse:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 26, 2010 at 1:18 am
    Books – “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”, by Czech President Vaclav Klaus has a good reputation (though I’ve never had a chance to read it).

    Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth – the Missing Science” is an excellent read – a bit dry at times, but full of interesting facts and references. Got the skeptics into a frothing frenzy, which is a good sign.

    Suzuki is NAZI scum – he wants to jail people who disagree with him.

  35. rubbert taster says:

    OK, I agree, he has to be a Poe…this one is a classic!

    Posted in GLAST sets its sights on gamma-ray bursts
    Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 17:45 GMT Eric Worrall

    Alien Communication?
    One possibility that is being ignored is that high energy gamma rays could be residue from an alien communication system.
    As technology advances, we have moved to using higher and higher frequency radiation to carry our communications.
    Higher frequency systems can carry denser payloads of information, which is why fiberoptic systems, which use laser light, can carry far more information than any radio system.
    Similarly, blu-ray discs are displacing older CD-Roms. Blu-ray discs use blue light, which is higher frequency than the red light used by CD-Roms. The higher frequency allows larger amounts of information to be packed onto the blu-ray discs.
    Researchers are already looking to use ultra-violet for high density media. X-rays will be the next step after ultra-violet.
    Advancing this trend to its logical conclusion, an advanced interstellar alien communication system could conceivably use hard gamma rays, generated and manipulated using technology we have yet to discover, to pack enormous payloads of information into their communications stream.
    That could be the source of the anomalous hard gamma rays detected by observatories.

  36. […] 2012/09/27: WtD: Watch out TMZ, “Watts up with that?” is the new celebrity gossip site […]

  37. Christa says:

    The range is enormous, from only a few different types
    of best baby monitor baby monitors since 1997. But, your will
    find that there is movement/breathing movement in her crib.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: