Delusional Scientists and bloggers fail at character assassination attempt


Again, I’m late to the party because I overestimated the intellectual capacity of the alarmist loons.  Steve wrote about this yesterday.  To get you all up to speed on this.  A little known blogger at WaPo (a guy named Andy Freedman) wrote a drive-by, character assassination piece on Drs Spencer and Christy.

Apparently what set this small man off was a press release regarding the 33rd anniversary of satellite data from UAH(University of Alabama-Huntsville).   The character assassin didn’t link to the press release, but only quoted part of it.  I haven’t looked to see if it was an accurate reflection of the press release, given the history of these delusional twits, it is entirely likely Freedman has gotten it wrong in either context or content, and likely it would be intentional.  I’ll put that on my list of things to do.  The part of the press release that sent Freedman in a full fledged dissension into mental depravity was this little jewel…..

“Globally averaged, Earth’s atmosphere has warmed about 0.45 Celsius (about 0.82° F) during the almost one-third of a century that sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites have measured the temperature of oxygen molecules in the air,” the release states. “This is at the lower end of computer model projections of how much the atmosphere should have warmed due to the effects of extra greenhouse gases since the first Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) went into service in Earth orbit in late November 1978.”

While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster,” says John Christy of UAH, who, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained one of the satellite-derived temperature records.

“The climate models produce some aspects of the weather reasonably well, but they have yet to demonstrate an ability to confidently predict climate change in upper air temperatures,” Christy states in the press release.

“The satellites should have shown more deep-atmosphere warming than the surface, not less,” Spencer says. “Whatever warming or cooling there is should be magnified with height. We believe this is telling us something significant about exactly why the climate system has not warmed as much as expected in recent decades.”

Freedman went full stupid on that.  Illogically, he starts to defend models which have failed to predict our temps.  He quotes debunked 5 y/o literature.  Then he enlists climate’s equivalent to the 3 stooges Santer, Dessler, and Abraham.  This seems an odd choice at first glance, because all 3 have had butthurt from the skeptical community.  The most recent was Dessler’s laughable attempt to rebut S&B2011.  Its a rather long story, even the abbreviated version, but one can start at WUWT to get a feel for the spankage Andy Dessler received from Spencer and the skeptical community.  And you can look here for my take and a couple of good links for more Dessler spankage.  Then, I realized why Freedman enlisted this twitted trio, they’ve all harbor ill will towards people that shatter their delusions.  Freedman goes on to post a silly graph from Abraham given to Freedman by Dessler.  It shows, gasp corrections!  Freedman envokes a Santer paper which stated, “surface warming has outpaced atmospheric warming.”  Dessler stated……

“As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up,” he said via email.

“It’s also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully.”

The bolded statements in the above quote are demonstrably false.  So, how is it that I know this isn’t about science and is about character assassination?  History.  Freedman isn’t a novice to climatology.  He has several posts about climate.  It is possible that he is delusional, but I don’t think one can be this delusional and still function as an individual.  The same goes for Santer and Dessler.  Here’s the problem with their statements.  First, if they are all mentally deficient as it appears, they would have us believe they are unaware of the RSS data set. (The other satellite data set.)  That they are unaware of Hansen’s algorithm which is constantly applied to the GISS data set.  That no one, not even Jones can look carefully had HadCrut’s genesis.  (The computer ate his homework.)  But, the most glaring bit of evidence as to why I know this is simply character assassination is that there is no discernable difference in the temp trends of the various data sets for the time period referenced. 


I used UAH’s data to graph the temps and then put UAH, GISS, HadCrut, and RSS’s trends from 1979 to present and then rearranged them. 

  Can you pick which one is UAH’s?  Can Santer, Dessler, Abraham or Freedman discern the two surface temp data sets vs the two satellites?  How long will the climate community continue to associate with scumbags.  These people are morally bankrupt.  Because of this intellectual and moral vacancy, how is it that anyone can trust anything these people say?

Go  here to see a couple of brief responses by Drs. Christy and Spencer.  Go here to get the highlights.


Wow, decent participation, but no comments….. for the people that wish to know, the color code is as follows….. Red is GISS, Blue is RSS, Green is HadCrut, and Bluegreen(aqua…whatever) is UAH.  Now, here’s a bit of irony.  As I already noted, RSS has the same 33 year trend.  However, this decade there’s been noticeable divergence in the various temp series.

They’re bagging on the wrong guys.  This is why I know it was about personalities and not about any science.  You would have thought Dessler and this Freedman character would have known this.  Oops

Link for the original graph ….

My thanks to commentator Robin for reminding.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Delusional Scientists and bloggers fail at character assassination attempt

  1. Brian H says:

    When will you Reveal All?

    • suyts says:

      lol, I guess I should do that….. I’ve got a buddy getting off work soon that says he’s looked at the data enough that he can tell…… when he gets home and e-mails me his answer, I’ll reveal…. about 15 min ….

  2. david says:

    “As I already noted, RSS has the same 33 year trend. However, this decade there’s been noticeable divergence in the various temp series.”

    So why the divergence now, when it was not apparent before? BTW, the chart shows uah as green and red, and rss as blue/green?

    • suyts says:

      I got those graphs from The colors of the lines will change depending upon which data set you choose first. In the instance of the first graph, GISS’s linear trend was first chosen so it get’s red. In the second graph, UAH temps was first chose, so it got red…… second is green…. and so on. It isn’t dependent upon what data set you choose, just the order you choose them in.

      It is a fun site, I highly recommend people going there and seeing for themselves. The guy that runs the site is agnostic when it comes to climate. It is a beautiful and robust app, and the data is linked to the sources and has been thoroughly vetted on both sides of the discussion.

      As to the similarities for the 33 yr and the divergence more recently,……. early in UAH’s history, they read lower than the others. Now they’re reading a tad higher…. I can’t be sure, but I think there’s a satellite malfunction of some sort that is causing this. Look for more howling when Drs Spencer and Christy correct this and come more in line with RSS. Conversely, were RSS to adjust their data upward, look for howling from the skeptics. It’s really strange. RSS is ran by alarmists and showing cooling. UAH is showing warming and ran by skeptics. In my view, those are real scientists, running both.

  3. I voted “It’s a trick” just for fun.


    • suyts says:

      lol, you and 4 others! The thing is, it isn’t the data that’s being called into question. UAH showed the most warming in the last decade. They are questioning the integrity of the scientists based on nothing other than their skepticism. A trait all scientists should have. Their critics have to invent crap in order to criticize Spencer and Christy.

      I think they’re pissed because if alarmists were in the positions Spencer and Christy are, then they imagine they’d have free reign on all the data.

  4. Robin says:

    I too collect and analyse climate data sest. Have done so for the last 17 years or so! One important difference between my analyses and those that I see on blogs and in “the literature” is that none appears to show “confidence intervals” for the fitted Least squares lines (or curves, if they have chosen a second or third order model). My software does this. Don’t know how to publish a plot here, I’m afraid, but would be able to send a GIF attachment by email. CI’s are rather interesting if one thinking in terms of making projections about future events. Typically they show that projections are worthless. (We knew that already, I suppose). Is there a compact source for all the data sets you’ve looked at? Mine all seem to come from various sources. |Currently I’m in an email exchange with the UK Met office about their graphical presentations of Hadcrut3, which I find rather misleading (to put it delicately). Their fitted plot continues to show a sharp increase, right up to its latest value. They tell me they use a 21 year Gaussian filter – and I asked if that was because they wished to disguise the current “flatline” – which has lasted for more than 15 years!

    I would be happy to have an email from you.


    • suyts says:

      Robin, I’ll send you an email soon, but I’ll also explain here in case others are interested as well…… If you become a regular here, you’ll notice essentially two styles of graphs. The ones that look similar to the ones above come from . A gentleman named Paul Clark operates that site. He’s written an online application that links to several data sources, and he’s programed several functions to apply to the data. He’s a huge time saver. I highly recommend to anyone that has an interest in this to go to his site, click on the interactive tab and play. Sometimes, I’ll just go over there and mesmerize myself with all the wonderful things he’s provided. Here’s a list of data sets he accesses …

      * HADCRUT3/HADSST2/CRUTEM monthly mean data
      * GISTEMP monthly mean data
      * UAH NSSTC monthly mean MSU data
      * RSS monthly mean MSU data
      * BEST monthly mean data
      * SIDC monthly sunspot number (SSN)
      * PMOD daily TSI (averages to monthly)
      * ESRL Mauna Loa CO2 monthly average
      * JISAO PDO index
      * ESRL AMO index
      * NSIDC Sea Ice Index

      And a some other stuff as well.
      Here are some of the things one can do with the data….

      * Select samples in a given range
      * Select samples at a given interval
      * Apply scale and offset to samples
      * Take the derivative (first difference) of the data
      * Do a running mean over a given number of samples
      * Average and reduce by a given number of samples
      * Remove a running mean from the data, leaving the noise (or signal, according to taste)
      * Fourier transform to the frequency domain
      * Take the absolute magnitude of complex Fourier series
      * Low or high-pass filter in the frequency domain
      * Inverse Fourier back to time domain
      * Apply a Hann window to the data to remove Fourier edge effects

      For novices to his site, I highly recommend exploring each tab. It’s worthwhile.

      For graphs which carry a different appearance, odds are I’m using MS Excel.

      • Robin says:

        Many thanks, suyts! I’m looking forward to your email.

        The software I use was developed by me, mainly in the 1980s-1990s. It is a wide ranging stats system with loads of functionality, written in BBC BASIC – of which you have probably never heard. Runs under RISCOS, an operating system developed originally by Acorn Computers, but abandoned by them in 1993 I think, when they decided to concentrate fully on ARM chips (Acorn Research Machines), and these chips now power about 90% of the world’s cell phones, I believe.
        I run a RISCOS emulator on my laptop, so can use my own software with no problems. I do not have much Fourier stuff, since as a non-mathematician I don’t really understand it :-((

        But there’s loads of other functionality, and I’ve sold it in the UK quite successfully, as a hobby business. Multiple regression is quite comprehensive, with robust methods, non-linear least squares – too much to go into!

        Will probably go fairly quiet over the holidays. Greetings to everyone.

        Robin Bromsgrove, UK

  5. Robin,

    You’re absolutely right about CI’s, I just haven’t got my head around how to calculate them yet! If you have code you can share that would be great. I work in C++ now but I cut my teeth on BBC Basic and had one of the first A305’s off the production line! Happy days…

    Best regards


    • suyts says:

      Paul, I think that would be a huge step forward if you guys would be able to incorporate CI’s. I’m not into prognostications, but many others would like to see something of that nature.

      You’re going to have to build a “tip jar” button.

  6. Pingback: The top 10 posts for the year (by views) | suyts space

  7. Robin says:

    Despite being retired the holiday season has put plenty of demands on my time, so have not yet properly thought about how to get my code across to you., The major problem is that it is heavily embedded in the general code, making use of my data storage system, matrix operations, graphics code and so forth. I shall try to sort something out, but can’t do it immediately. I also need to resurrect my thinking from the late 1970s, which gets harder by the year!

    Will be in touch in due course, and I’ll email with some graphics examples.


    • suyts says:

      We’ll look forward to it!

    • Hi Robin,

      I wouldn’t worry too much about working code; what I really need is pointers on the algorithms. Last time I looked it looked like I needed to implement the t-function, which rather daunted me… I could use some math library, but I like the fact that the ‘analyse’ code is plain C++ at the moment so it’s trivial to compile and easy to check. Plus I always think I don’t really understand something until I’ve coded it (and maybe not even then 😉 )

      Happy New Year!


      • Robin says:

        Hello, Paul, Yes, you are right about needing the “t” tables. It will be no problem for you! I developed very good (dare I say excellent?) approximations for the usual standard probability levels in 1978, using, and for use on, my Commodore PET. Rational functions, merely a line of code each, and I’m happy to “share” them. 99%, 95%, 90% and 80% are all available. In my S/W you can choose the level you want, but it’s not necessary for most people because they are content with 95%. I have never fathomed out why.

        So, when things have subsided here I’ll look them out.

        Are you in the UK? I’m in Bromsgrove.

        Cheers, Robin

      • Robin says:

        Hello, Paul, I tried to send something last night but somehow the (long) script seemed to prevent me from seeing the “Post Comment” box. Am I doing something wrong or stupid? I can’t find your email address at the moment. I think you sent it to me, but if so I’ve lost it :-((

        I would rather send the code and code fragments as an attachment. Some is ready. For other sections I have to do a bit of digging.

        Hope to hear from you soon.

  8. Pingback: Kill the Irishman(2011) full movie online | Watch and Download Movies

  9. Andyj says:

    Nice bit of cherry picking there I see.
    I guess agw must be a scam.

    • suyts says:

      I guess your ability to discern what the post was about is lacking.

      What was picked? The first graph of the total sat data, or the divergences we’ve recently seen? Or, are you just babbling nonsense as must AGW supporters do?

Leave a Reply to Robin Cancel 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