MOTR wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:19am:

You mean this one

Take out the ESNO signal, progs, and you'll see there is a clear warming trend. Exactly as the physics tells us there should be.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 9:26am:



Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the laws of physics are being ignored. And a blog site proves it ?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 9:26am:


Firstly, that is 0.2C above the base line. An increase of about 0.5C over the observed period. 

Despite the fact this data sets used by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) provide a global measure, progs wants to focus on the data coming from the US, specifically the USHCN adjusted record. Is this because Watts has recently told him that these adjustments are not the product of good science but of "purposeful mendacity". You'd think after several warnings, progs would be a little less inclined to outsource his thinking to this particular shyster. While progs might be intellectually lazy, he most certainly is a loyal bugger. 

The adjustments made by USHCN are transparent and entirely justifiable. The most significant adjustment is necessitated by the shift away from from evening measurements towards morning measurements. 



I know you don't like answering direct questions, progs, but what bias would these systematic shifts in time of observation have on the raw data?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 7:34pm:


How about thinking critically about the propaganda you are cutting and pasting. You could start by answering the question, though I shan't be holding my breath.

I'm not the one who uncritically claims that the adjustments made by NASA and the USHCN are bullshit because I read it in a blog. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realise that there must be a reason why the raw data is adjusted. We can accept Watts' conspiracy theory or we can look for Ockham's Razor. That's not arrogance it's plain common sense. As it turns out observation times have changed making the data useless for the purpose of identifying trends in its raw form.

This is the type of homework a true skeptic does. If you want to outsource your thinking to a fraud like Watts, expect to be ridiculed. Now if you are too precious to debate the validity of your claims, I'll take it they weren't worth much to begin with. 

Another hockey stick snaps

Yet another failed BS hockey stick


With the good ol Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts looking after your best interests from failed fraud pseudo science


Gergis et al reported that they had used 27 proxy series, but that they had selected these from a larger body of data. This was a critical step in the process and one that could well have led to a bias in the results. Many of the studies in the field of temperature reconstructions rely on “sorting” or filtering the data in some way, either choosing only proxy series that correlate well with their local temperature or alternatively weighting them according to how well they correlate. On the face of it, this is a reasonable approach, as the argument might well be made that if there is no correlation then the series is clearly not a proxy for temperature. However, the problem with this approach is that it amounts to a circular argument; it could be that the correlation between temperature records and proxy data is coincidental. This flaw has been demonstrated by studies in which the proxy series are replaced with dummy data series that wiggle up and down at random. In these studies, it has been shown that most of the time the resultant “reconstruction” is a hockey stick.

However, the good news was that Gergis et al were apparently aware of these issues and they declared that they had found a way around them.

In fact:


This seems to suggest that Gergis’s declaration that the correlations were based on detrended data was false and that she and her co-authors had indeed fallen foul of the circular argument noted above. The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/anoth...