We recently had a couple of alarmist commenters who went into attack mode over a little post I wrote the other day. This is very nice, because we rarely find specimens in the wild to study! Usually, they are on display in coddled enclaves of academia or alarmist blogs, where interaction with them is very difficult. Very few of them venture into the wild and interact with skeptics, mainly because they end up looking ridiculous and because they are a bit…… challenged, to put it as nicely as I can.
So, today we have a special treat! We can study one of these ever decreasing specimens in the wild! I’ll have to give a bit of background……
Regular readers here will remember my post, A Visual Assist —- Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!
It was there that I made a graph visually easier to read and highlight what the Hockey Schtick was stating about some information they found at NASA’s web site.
NASA data shows Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s and warmed 75% faster
This graph.
Well, as we know, a couple of dingbat alarmists came by to hurl their slime in nearly incomprehensible gibberish. Their lunatic actions prompted this post. Dedicated To Laz and Co, in which I answered their irrational arguments. Apparently, this threw one of the alarmists into a delusional fit —— reality not being their strong suit to begin with. So he wrote a post in his spoof site for Steve’s Real Science. You know you’ve arrived when the lunatics start writing crap about you which bears no resemblance to reality.
The reason why their objections to my little post were incomprehensible is because they have reading and reasoning deficiencies. (And it may be that some have morality issues, as well.)
You see, when I write something clear, like “arctic temps were warmer in the thirties”. Alarmists read that as a proclamation towards global temps. Their small brains interpret “arctic temps were warmer in the thirties” to something like “global warming never happened“.
You think I’m kidding? If you read my original post, you will see that I never mentioned global temps, or global warming, or even climate change. Nor did the the Hockey Schtick’s post. Here’s theirs in its entirety.
According to a graph published on the NASA Earth Observatory site, Arctic temperatures were warmer in 1930’s than at the end of the 20th century. In addition, the graph shows the Arctic warmed ~1.6C over the 19 year period from ~1918-1937 at a rate of 0.84C/decade, 75% faster than the 0.48C/decade from 1980-2000. Thus, alarmist claims that recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or accelerating are bogus.
So, my post nor the post I referenced stated anything about global temperatures, nor was it implied in any manner. In fact, my concluding statement was —–
I will accept acknowledgement that I was correct last August when I asserted ice loss was not related to arctic temps.
So, what does the alarmist write about in his post on the subject? (It’s improbable that the alarmist could actually write comprehensible sentences, so it is thought that they’re hiring others to write for them, most likely greedy capitalist skeptics.)
Cherry picking one area to suggest something significant about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels. It a tired old tactic. Find an area that might just be bucking the trend for now and highlight it.
He continues later……
So simply put, even if suyts is correct in his statement that the “Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties“, (and he isn’t as I will show), without a global context the statement is as significant as saying refrigerators were as warm in the thirties.
Clearly, this is evidence of prior assertion, to wit…. Their small brains interpret “arctic temps were warmer in the thirties” to something like “global warming never happened“.
Now, he made some other errors in his post, which are to be expected, because of the poor things……. challenges. But, it is interesting that he did exactly what I said I wouldn’t do because it wasn’t valid. He did exactly what I said and alarmist would do! (Being right all the time is a burden 
) But, as demonstrated above, his challenges are too much to overcome to have a rational discussion about the various issues which arise regarding our climate.
Now, as is the case of most case studies, we have more questions than answers.
The questions here become,
- Were the alarmists’ reading comprehension abilities simply too low to understand what I or the Hockey Schtick were stating? Meaning they could be mentally impaired.
- Or, did the alarmists create strawmen arguments intentionally? Meaning they could be morally impaired.
- Or, do they have a Tourette’s like ailment? Which renders them useless in a rational discussion?
Or, is it a combination of two or all three of these possibilities?
As is always the case, more study is necessary in this poorly funded avenue. But, I am hopeful that someone can write a grant application for more such studies. 
James
suyts space 
One problem is the isolation. If you stay in a progressive bubble you do not ever look at the data and try and interpret it yourself. When I say ‘interpret’ what I mean is to analyse as much as you can lay your hands on and attempt to develop a hypothesis that fits the data. Scientists have been doing this since Kepler fitted Copernicus’ planetary data to the formula for ellipses.
Failing that, you can fit the available data, raw and
cookedsorry adjusted to existing hypotheses.The progressive, green types who do not question the received wisdom of Pachauri and Romm, do not know there are actually two hypotheses to explain 20th C temperature rises (in particular) which are in competition. These are:
1. CO2 pretty much caused all the temperature rise (about 0.82 C in HadCRUT v3 dataset)
2. Solar magnetic field effect on cloud formation, a small contribution from CO2 and ocean cycles (ie effectively the Svensmark/Friis-Christensen/Lindzen/Scafetta hypothesis)
Of these two an analytical examination of the data favours the second. For example, solar magnetism has been linked to cooling when the Sun is less active. The Sun is in a new minimum phase for the first time in at least 50 years and we have cooling observed, on average. The CO2 high sensitivity hypothesis cannot account for this recent cooling at all.
Furthermore direct measurements of the effect of CO2 indicate it is low. The ERBE and CERES satellite data suggest a value of 0.6-0.7 C rise per doubling of pCO2. (I can confirm this from analysis of 250 years of the Central England Temperature record, 0.7 C, and from the recent Gleckler et al 2012 SST paper, 0.4 C). No one from the CAGW favouring side has either analysed these NASA satellite datasets or the long term temperature record. Instead their measures of 2XCO2 are solely from computer models, with unspecified inputs.
On this basis I can recommend to Lazarus and others who may disagree with Suyts’ posts…look at the data yourselves. Both the raw and adjusted data. You will be surprised how well it fits the Svensmark hypothesis, not least the recent experimental work at CERN and the Uni of Aarhus.
And that says that CO2 does warm the Earth a little, but because of the logarithmic response it cannot be harmful. Therefore vast expenditure to control a non-existent risk cannot be justified.
I can provide detailed citations and links, but don’t do so here as the spam filter will be unhappy.
As you noted Bruce, they wouldn’t read them anyway.
“Or, do they have a Tourette’s like ailment? Which renders them useless in a rational discussion?”
It is a mental disorder. As you discuss above you can clearly communicate facts to these people, but if the facts do not fit their view of how the world should work, they reject them. It happens time and again, no matter the subject.
Obviously they named themselves, because noone else would name a behavior that refuses to learn and grow, ‘progressive’.
Pingback: Fraud And Intellectual Dishonesty Still Prevalent In Psych Academia!!!! | suyts space
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Lol, I thought this was a good one! :D….. I’m off for a bit!
Yeppers! It’s a keeper 🙂
“So he wrote a post in his spoof site for Steve’s Real Science. ”
And Steve has issued corrections when I showed him to be wrong;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/understanding-climate-change-denial.html
The question is are you mature enough to do the same and admit your ignorance or can we expect more misleading posts and further incorrect claims that the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than this present decade?
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/suyts-fails-to-touch-base.html
Like I sated Laz, you introduced a false step by your graphic splicing. But, the door swings both ways. Are you going to issue a correction on your posts?
It is clear the entire premise of your posts,—– that I was referring to global temps, or anything with global implications—– were false.
And, again, you’re asking me to issue a correction for doing something I stated was invalid. The fact is, your follow-up post only buttresses my points. Your reference to Mannian techniques are a bit humorous. Oh looky! Mikey does it ergo it is valid! You’ll probably need to come with something different than that before you can expect a correction.
But, again, I’ll be expecting one first. No, you don’t have to apologize, though that would be a gentlemanly thing to do, I wouldn’t hope for that much.
And the base line fiasco?
“I’ll be expecting one first.”
Bit childish isn’t it? You are either wrong and admit incompetence like an adult or you act like a kid crying – “I’m not saying sorry ’till they do”.
Very mature.
That’s beautiful Laz, you skip over the entire content of my comment and focus on the minutia. Typical, this is the thinking which led you to your errors to begin with.
The base line fiasco is exactly why the approach is invalid. You’re expecting me to issue a correction based upon your invalid application?
And still you haven’t acknowledged that the entire premise of your posts about me were because of your fundamental lack of reading comprehension. Instead of asking for a clarification, which was unnecessary for the vast majority of readers, you and another simply attacked. And, now, you come back with the audacity to demand I issue a correction?
I don’t know whether to laugh at you or simply ignore you.
I’d rather that you ignore me. What is clear from the fact that you will issue a correction when I do is that you accept you made a schoolboy error by not knowing of anomaly baselines.
The fact this was spotted by a dingbat alarmist who is a bit challenged with reading and reasoning deficiencies and not by you sets the scale for your own intellectual ability – that is embarrassing.
The fact that you say you will only correct your errors if you believe someone has also made errors and only if they correct theirs first says everything about you character, integrity and maturity (or rather lack of them), that I may use your comment in another post or link to this one to ensure people know the sort sad person you are.
So I’d rather you correct nothing and leave you own deficiencies and standard of scientific literacy for all to see.
“I’d rather that you ignore me…..
Oh, I bet you do now. Are you going to pretend you haven’t seen that? It’s interesting that you didn’t respond to the most recent post on this issue. From that, we see the errors were entirely yours, and yours alone. I have nothing to correct. You have much to correct.
Your childish banter is amusing for about a day or so, but, your seemly obsession for looking like a complete imbecile and your refusal to accept your flaws, both to your character and your understanding on this blog is rather disturbing. You should seek help.
I didn’t respond to your criticism because I didn’t know it existed. I don’t follow your blog. I only found a link to your ‘it was warmer in the 30s’ nonsense on another site that was having a giggle at it and I thought I’d do you a favour and explain why you can’t make such claims by ignoring over a decade of recent data.
Your post isn’t a valid criticism anyway. I plainly stated I hadn’t done a graph combining data but just followed your ‘stick a bit on the end’ technique but introduced a credible value for an offset to compensate for your ignorance of anomaly baselines to guess at what you would have got if you new anything about data sets. It showed you would have had to admit that the Arctic wasn’t warmer in the 1930s.
Pingback: A Response To Lazarus’ Criticism | suyts space