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. 

  

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 ….. ………..      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.     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.     Well done readers and commenters.