A Response To Lazarus’ Criticism


Well, I’ve got a few spare moments, which I’d rather spend on something more useful than responding to the peanut gallery, but Laz seems to be insisting on publicizing his illogical thought processing, so who am I to stand in the way.

Readers may recall my post, A Visual Assist —- Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!

To this Laz, for reasoning only a warmist could possibly have, thought I was discussing global temps when I clearly was referring only to arctic temps.  So, he wrote an entire post refuting something which was never stated nor implied.   

This was pointed out in my post “A Glimpse Into The Mind Of An Alarmist…. A Case Study!”  To date, I’ve not seen one clarification, retraction, or an apology for some of the rather abrasive and illogical comments he made towards me and the readers here. Instead, Laz seems to double down on stupid.

Prior to that I spent some of my time responding to some of his other illogical arguments.  Dedicated To Laz and Co.  In that post, I illustrated what not to do in attempting to calculate the arctic temps relative to the temps in the 1930s.  I took UAH derived temps and attached it to the Cosimo graph. 


Not satisfied with simply looking like a person with a reading comprehension difficulty, he’s decided to move further into the world of irrationality, and display a clear question towards his character and motivations.  Now, it seems he’s written an entire post debunking my graphic which I clearly stated was invalid. 

Worse yet, he seems to think that I should issue a correction because of his continued stupidity.  Apparently now, he seems to think I should defend the above graphic about which in the original post I clearly stated,

Now, I made it a point in the prior post to criticize splicing and comparing unlike things.  Of course, this is how Hansen, Jones, and the gang now handle their global temps, particularly when referencing arctic temps.   Cosimo warned against such validity, as well.”

So, what does Lazarus do?  In spite of my and Cosimo’s admonishment not to do this, he does exactly that. He argues that I plotted my baseline in the wrong location.  And, he’d be correct if this was a valid way to approach things.  Here’s a line providing his justification for doing so…….  It is especially common in climatology, and the likes of Prof Mann has done it, “It is especially common in climatology, and the likes of Prof Mann has done it, ……”

Laz concluded this post with this……

It remains to be seen if he has the honesty and maturity to correct his rather obvious mistakes and perhaps even apologise for misleading his very gullible readers, but based on his example so far and  this latest nonsense  it doesn’t bode well so I’m not going to be holding my breath – however time will tell.

As he continues in his journey through his abyss of senselessness, he comes up with this for what he believes is the proper placements of the base line.

Using this link I got the data for the major temperature data sets and worked out the average of HadCru between 1979 – 1999 and also for the UHA data for the same period. I found HadCru = -0.03742 and UHA = -0.0933, so a difference or the offset is 0.055888.

And so from there, he adjusts his baseline.  He even gives us a big arrow! 


Now, this is fascinating.  When I went to look at his post, I didn’t really look at his methods at first, rather I looked at his end results, first.  This is a useful technique when regarding your own work and the work of others.  Clearly, Laz doesn’t employ this technique.  The first question which should be asked, is “do the results accurately depict reality?”.  In Laz’s graph, we see that he’s introduced a huge upward step in the continuity of the graph.  In other words, for this to be a valid comparison, we should see a huge jump like this reflected in real-world data.  Let’s see………  here’s the UAH polar data.  We should see a huge jump near and around 2001.


Well, we don’t see that huge jump.  In fact, using the 5 year moving average we see a gentle and slight slope upward to the absolute value of right at 0.5° C. 

Here we see the obvious step bias introduced by Laz.  We see this isn’t reflected in reality. 

image   image

Again, and for the final time, I stated this approach is not valid. And, I’m not going to defend something I clearly stated wasn’t valid. I should stop here and let the readers pick out the errors Laz made.  But, Laz doesn’t learn from honest critiques, so I won’t waste the readers’ time.

Here we see his adjustment to the base line, contrasted to what I placed mine in relation to the Cosimo graph.  (Note: the two are not to scale of each other.)  Simply look at the start point relative to the Cosimo graph.   Let’s also note that he’s using a different Cosimo graph.  Notice how he substitutes a red line for the black line I used and how the red line I used for reference point isn’t employed.  This is the difficulty with warmists, you never know if they’re being intentionally dishonest or simply vapid.  So, lining up his red line with my black line for reference, it looks to me like he adjusted the base line closer to 1° C than to 0.5° C ….. ………..  Thinking smile    Scroll up to the second graphic in this post, which is the one Laz created. 

Hmmm………..  Now, I’m not sure exactly how he placed his silly spliced graph, or in what manner he did, but clearly his baseline is more than 0.0558 increased over the Cosimo graph.  Zeroes and decimal points, they’re such a tricky concept.   Annoyed  Idiot.  An offset of 0.055 on this scale would be nearly imperceptible.  It would be about the width of one of the red lines in the graphs above. 

Laz, this entire extended conversation about the Cosimo graph has been nothing but a tedious exercise for me, and exemplar of your mendacious and malicious efforts.   The way you frame your arguments and the context in which you put them in displays an extraordinary amount of intellectual dishonesty and vacancy.  At every point in this discussion your buffoonery only detracted from this discussion and has added nothing but your hateful spite.   I really dislike being pulled down into such an abyss which your mind seems to dwell in. 

While others may enjoy showing you to be the complete tool that you are, I’m one that values an open, honest, mature, and civil conversation.  I do enjoy certain levels of levity as well.  With your engagement, I find it impossible to proceed in such a civil manner.  You have been a complete and utter waste of my time and everyone else’.  No one can possibly seriously regard your snipes, innuendo, and character assassination. 

I really believe you need to take some moments of introspection (if you are capable of such)  and consider if you are adding to or detracting from the general societal discourse.  Please do not respond on this blog until you have done so.  But, while you do contemplate yourself, I wonder if you have the, “honesty and maturity to correct” your “rather obvious mistakes and perhaps even apologise for misleading [your]very gullible readers“?  I doubt it.  But, hope springs eternal. 

Now, to the a larger question.  After the recent interactions with the warmista, we see that this is a clear pattern.  They constantly project their dishonesty on skeptics.  And, when they’ve not factual basis for such projection, they simply resort to fabrication and contortions of the assertions of skeptics.  I’m not sure why suyts space seems to have been recently targeted for such attacks, but, we can guess.   Smile  Well done readers and commenters.   

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to A Response To Lazarus’ Criticism

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    NCDC has some questions to answer, like why 1934 Arizona was cooled in their database by over 3 F compared to unearthed official paper records.

    It is not isolated datapoints either, as you would expect if there were individual timing or measurement errors. I particularly like the Mackay Sugar Mill site, which has been a field of sugar cane for most of the last century, yet GISS edited the historical GHCN temperatures down by exactly 0.1 C steps every 5 years from 1948 back to 1908. This is so blatant it astounds me. Without such adjustments there is little or no temperature rise at that rural site. As Ken said:

    Wow- when they adjust, they don’t muck around!

    • suyts says:

      That’s excellent work by Ken. That’s just one in a long list of stations with identified extreme adjustments. One could almost assign the word incompetent to these adjustments, until we realize these adjustments are uniformly in one direction….. always.

    • Chris Burt in the original Wunderground article claimed this was all down to “changing mix of stations”. There is probably an element of truth there as far as Arizona is concerned, but as my analysis of Alabama shows, the main reason for these discrepancies is TOBS adjustments.

      Burt actually states

      The original raw data of specific weather stations has not been changed”

      and seemed a bit offended when I pointed out his error asking

      Please show me a single example of a specific weather station’s data that has been changed.

      Having given him the data he wanted, I am still awaiting his response.

      As an “accomplished weather historian”, surely he should know about these things?


      • suyts says:

        Paul, have you collated all of this work your doing which temp adjustments?

        • It was really just a follow up to Anthony’s original post.

          My first post compared 1934 v 2011 temps in Alabama at each site (19 in all) which figured in both years state climate records. I then subdivided them into divisions to eliminate any chance of uneven geographical representation.

          This proved pretty conclusively that mix had no effect and therefore that the new NCDC version was cooling the past through adjustments.


          Maybe Chris Burt was bluffing hoping I did not know my way round the NCDC database!! If so, silly man!

          Otherwise I still find it hard to believe he did not know these things were going on . (He is described as an accomplished weather historian apparently).

          He actually sent me another message last week while I was away, asking how the USHCN database works.

        • suyts says:

          That’s hilariously funny. Why do people challenge notions first, and then ask for information?

          But, I was referencing all of the work you and others have done showing the alteration of our historical temps. You, Steve, Anthony and Ken referenced above have done some remarkable investigations to the temp adjustments. I think it would be a large undertaking, but having them assembled in a cohesive format, I believe, would be of great value. From the Darwin station to Alabama to Iceland, all over the world we have examples of manipulation. But, it’s difficult to reference them because these examples are scattered far and wide across the internet.

  2. Me says:

    Their projections sounds allot like a conspiracy theories, and I sure most of the vocal ones that post on skeptic sites accuse skeptics of that and said they don’t believe in that, errr so they say? But Lazy said he was septic err something like that a couple a times James, and it even looks the part! 😆

    • suyts says:

      Well, Laz simply comes off as a raving lunatic, but, I think behind that lunacy, lies a malevolent individual. But, yes, the same people who blather incessantly about how skeptics think its a conspiracy are the same people who blather incessantly about a big oil or big gas conspiracy.

      • Me says:

        You say you’re not sure why suyts space seems to have been recently targeted for such attacks, but, we can guess.

        Me hypothesis is this seems to have picked up after the future pHDouches finished their school term, but not for all of them as we see the regular ones show up here as well. Maybe that is a conspiracy theory too and not a hypothesis in their minds even as I said it was my hypothesis. But hey, you know, as you pointed out their reading skills and how they see things.

      • suyts says:

        Lol, yeh, it could be that children in school now have time to get their asses handed to them. I’ve often stated that their arguments were sophomoric.

  3. miked1947 says:

    You are not applying the Occam’s Razor( lex parsimoniae) to this scenario. He is probably being paid to be an internet bully and disrupt realist sites. A lot of the ones that tried to disrupt WUWT, CA, RS, and some other sites in the past have a full wardrobe of personalities they use when visiting different sites. Anthony caught some of them using different nom de plumes. I had one at Climate realist web site that carried on for a couple of years.
    It does not matter what you say to Laz because he will distort it or twist the discussion to something else.
    There are times I will engage those types because it can be fun for a while.

  4. miked1947 says:

    This is all a deception because the Cosmino work was a fairy tale meant to misdirect others. It is pretty Garbage but evidence of GIGO none the less. There is not enough accurate data from greater than 60 North to create a meaningful graph with that type of resolution.

    • suyts says:

      That’s the beauty of this. I know there isn’t enough coverage there, but the warmists believe there is. So, they have to argue from ignorance rather than address reality.

  5. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:

  6. Lazarus says:

    Suyrts, your post above is just full of Ad Hom nonsense.

    I freely admit that my graphic introduced an upward step. It was always going to do that because I plainly stated I hadn’t done a graph combining data but just followed your ‘stick a bit on the end’ technique and 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 knew anything about data sets – it still does that and shows you would have had to admit that the Arctic wasn’t warmer in the 1930s.

    In fact the whole post above is nothing more that a hissy fit rant that yet again avoids all the questions you claim you would answer if asked.

    So your baseline fiasco remains uncorrected to mislead the gullible and be sneered at by anyone with a ounce of scientific literacy. It apparently will never be corrected because like a child you don’t correct you errors unless others do it first.

    Like someone rejecting the shape of the Earth you reject Meta Analysis but fail to express why in any intelligent way. Can we presume this means it isn’t a valid technique to be used in science so you reject tobacco causes cancer etc., or do you just reject it when you don’t like the result it gives?

    And my original point from the Arctic warming post remains, nothing above, and nothing in your silly align ‘the anomaly axis’ to zero post has provided any evidence that the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s. That post still uses data over a decade out of date and as I have shown in both my posts, the latest data shows that you are wrong about that as well even considering any historical adjustments.

    And I am still waiting for you to provide an explanation of why, if you had of been right, you though it significant. You have gone to great lengths to tell everyone it has nothing to do with global temperatures but no length to explain why you believe it was worth a post.

    • suyts says:

      You don’t like the ad homs? Actually, the characterization of you is based upon objective observations. But, if you don’t like the tone or tenor, perhaps you should have approached this matter differently.

      If you don’t understand how much further advance we are to you, then I can’t help it. Much of what I write here assumes a base knowledge of the topics I discuss. I’m simply not going to explain the invention of the wheel each time I write a post. If you don’t understand something, you should simply ask, as opposed to making assumptions and then writing posts based upon those errant assumptions.

      “Baseline fiasco”? Do you not see how silly this makes you look? You still don’t understand WTF you’re talking about. Do you think 0.0588 is accurately depicted in the graph you spliced together or did you errantly adjust it upward by more than 0.5? As we all can plainly see that you did.

      Laz, I have answered everyone of your questions. If your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you don’t understand this, then I can’t help you. Go back and re-read the posts, both yours and mine and the comments, in sequence. If you still have questions. Then come back, and ask in a reasonable manner. Or, write another post and get embarrassed, again.

      Honestly, when I wrote that this has been tedious, I meant it. I’m tired of your mendacious comments. But, more than that, I’m tired of your insulting nonsensical, handwaving comments. Shape of the earth? Smoking? Really? You get your ass handed to you and you throw those out? What is that a Tourette response?

      Laz, I go out of my way to allow for differing opinions and perspectives on this blog. I allow for a broad range of forms of expression. I have gone well out of my way to answer your sophist posits. I think any reasonable person would conclude that I’ve been extremely tolerant and patient with you. I also believe any rational person would conclude I’ve accorded you every reasonable opportunity to take many other avenues than the one you have taken. I don’t mind being generous with my time, and I don’t mind explaining even the simplest of concepts. But, I object to people taking advantage and spewing inanities.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      Lazarus says:
      August 6, 2012 at 2:33 am

      . . . so you reject tobacco causes cancer etc. . . . .

      See my comment here.

      Epidemiology experiments are more complex than many think. The “proof” is not always so exacting that you can say with absolute, complete confidence that “smoking causes cancer.”


  7. philjourdan says:

    Suyts – you have given Laz no incentive to be truthful (and as we know, with alarmists, it is all about incentives, not truth). YOu link to his site, thus driving up his metrics, so you only encourage him to be as deceitful as ever. As witnessed by his pathetic lies and ad hominems above.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, I know. I’ve already wasted more time on him than I should have. OTOH, I would have thought he’d learn something by now, but he just keeps coming back for more embarrassment.

  8. ThePhDScientist says:

    Actually I thought LAZ did a fabulous job of exposing the unscientific nonsense that emanates from this little blog. I particularly liked this one!


    • Bruce says:

      You are digging pretty deep for this one. Bookmarking Suyts’ posts now?

      I tangled with Lazarus a few months ago on another blog and cleaned his clocks then too. Which is easy since the high sensitivity hypothesis does not fit the data, no matter how much smooging you try to make it fit.

      My recommendation for both of you is to at least start citing data and journal articles. I can almost always pull them apart too, but it takes a lot longer.

      Hint, don’t cite Foster and Rahmstorf, I can dissect that one in my sleep it comes up so much.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Oh Bruce what an internet rock star you are. I’m so impressed with your credentials. Now point me to your publications on climate research. I’d love to read them!

      • Bruce says:

        As it happens I do indeed do some work for climate related research, and get paid for it. Rather well paid (I charge commercial rates and the government is quite generous with climate money here in Oz). There may be one or two things which could eventually come out in journals or as patents going on what my colleagues have said, but I’m not leading those projects just providing expert input.

        That is just a sideline to my usual work, which is in applied chemistry. I have enough publications in that to be quite happy with, even though I am not uni based and am not under the publish/perish imperative. (Come to think of it, I do a lot of REE related work, and that is mostly climate related nowadays too – Nd for wind turbines, La for Priuses etc.)

        Now that you’ve got your pique out of your system you might want to stump up some CAGW science. Like this thread from yesterday.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh i’m on that CAGW science. But right now i’m trying to refute all the mountains of evidence for evolution so that I can convince myself the earth is 6000 years old and that men walked with dinosaurs.

          Can you tell me how to go about convincing myself that ALL of this science is actually false? It’s very hard for me…

        • PhilJourdan says:

          On the CAGW thing? When? So far you have not shown any cognizance of the issue. Indeed, if you strip away the infantile insults, juvenile ad hominems, and useless pejoratives, of your posts, one is left with only “the…a….me….then….and….that”

      • Bruce says:

        And no I am not going to cite any of my publications to you. I was quite interested in the case of fellow chemist Dr Nickolas Drapela last year. Lefties are soooo vindictive, doncha think?

    • suyts says:

      LMAO!!!! You got your time frame wrong, Ph. Follow it in sequence. Wait…. Laz, is that you? Is this why you won’t come talk to me about the climate anymore?

      Ph, I handed him his ass, like I do everyone else who wants to come play. You’re more than welcome to give it a whirl. Ph, Laz…. whoever you want to pretend to be.

      You know, the problem with you ladies is that you don’t understand what I do when I write my posts. And this was the problem with Laz in this case.

      I always, intentionally, allow room for arguments. Ones I’ve already thought of. I’ll tell you what you need to know. But I won’t tell you all that I know. Once. There was once that I’ve been surprised by a response from the nut gallery. And, I learned.

      Honestly, I learn much more from the people you call an echo chamber. But, you’d actually have to read before you’d know that.

      Ph, I want to thank you for bringing this back up. Good times! Although, I do recommend you actually reading this post. It applies, especially the last few paragraphs.

      Oh, and Ph, I recognized the quote when you posted it. Now, explain to me how this applies. Try something different. Something which may be more of a challenge to me. Mind your sequence, child.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Hahaha that’s your biggest problem, your so f**ing full of yourself you wouldn’t know truth or science if it slapped you in th efacE!

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Notice only children need express themselves with what they think are grown up shock words. The adults have no need of infantile insults.

      • suyts says:

        Every question, every derisive remark, every ad hom, every challenge by Laz was answered here. What more do you want me to say? Laz came in with a fallacious thought as to what I was stating. He ended up making a tool of himself.

        It happens from time to time on this blog. It’s because I take the time to investigate what people are saying on both sides of the subject, as opposed to just jumping in with my prejudices and biases.

        And, yes, Ph, it does take a certain amount of ego to run a blog. Especially one that continually grows to levels I never imagined. But, being that I’m correct more often than not, and man enough to admit when I’m wrong. I think I can handle it for a bit more.

        Do you have something? Or are you simply going to cry about what I’m stating?

    • PhilJourdan says:

      When you learn the difference between ignorant opinion and science, give us a real link. LInking to your blog is kind of stupid since you do not know science 101.

      And you still have not told us what the null hypothesis is, as ANY scientist would be able to do.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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