You can find it here with another fantastically stupid graph. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=15665
I won’t bore people with repeating my post The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe….. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcott’s HS Blade ……. Mikey? What’s That About A Dagger? But, if you’re not familiar, I think it’s still worth the read. But, I will make a couple of observations.
But, here’s the hilarious part. Team Marcott told them this isn’t valid. In their silly Q&A which RC hosted!!!! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/ They had this to say …..
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
And, at least in that, team Marcott was correct. You can’t just slap an annual or 5 year smooth graph onto a graph with a 120 year resolution and pretend that’s science or math! You would have thought the idjits at RC would have taken it down and hidden their embarrassment. But, no, it’s still there. Worse, other lunatics are using it for their propaganda!!! See here for a HuffPo conversation!
But, just too illustrate. Here’s HadCruts global temp record. In the graph above we see they’re showing HadCru to go from just under –0.4 C to + 0.4C which you can get to by using a 20 year mean. But, Marcott said theirs was a 120 year resolution. So, thanks to WFT site, I’ll plot both of them. The red line is what RC shows, the green is what should have been placed on the graph in conjunction with Marcott.
I drew lines to show the increase which should have been plotted instead of what was. It should have shown a 0.15 C increase. Instead, RC chose to be dishonest and misrepresent things. I say dishonest because the it looks like Rhamy posted it, and Gavin, to be sure, commented on the post. I’m quite sure both of them know better. They just let it roll and deceived poor unsuspecting HuffPo losers to display their ignorance. Funny, but, a bit sad and pathetic.
But, I’m glad they did. The demonstrate for all the world their devotion to science …… which is about zero.
h/t Hank
I honestly do not understand how otherwise smart people….fall for this at all
…and there are some
Every temp reconstruction shows jump ups and jump downs….for even a longer period of time than their so called global warming record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Yep, but it’s because they want to believe. I’m rather shocked at the open dishonesty at RC. They used to try to hide it better. This is something I’d expect from Cook and the like.
You made me look at RC one time….I think it did permanent damage to my cones and rods
😆
They are not otherwise smart.
heard on CtoC that the Antarctic ice is ‘thin and slushy-ice’ so it doesn’t count ….and besides ,
glaciers are melting in Switzerland….yawn….meanwhile I had frost yesterday and I have to go
cut wood to keep Milo warm this winter and I’m running out of drying weather.
No doubt. Cool Autumn rains in these parts!
Fall is setting in here too. Temps are only in the upper 90’s.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Are you sure they are not trying to rely on the sleeper effect where exposure times between initial message and cue re-enforcement are important. I suspect a lot of CAGW/climate change publicity try this approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_effect
Also there is Effective Frequency which is similar. In advertising, the effective frequency is the number of times a person must be exposed to an advertising message before a response is made and before exposure is considered wasteful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency
Note at no time are these exposed required to understand, they just have to feel the need and know the message.
And when that doesn’t work, reinforce it with a treat. Obama Phone! 😆
You got it 🙂
LOL, I’m absolutely sure that’s what they’re doing. This was one of the flaws of skeptics in the early years. If we adequately responded to an issue, we thought it dead and didn’t bother with it again, only to have the same issue pop back up over and over again. So much so, that things simply became accepted as fact even though skeptics had more than adequately responded.
🙂 So true.
Anyone who didn’t understand that CO2AGW alarmism was a relentless and political machine from the start made a mistake.
Gavin Schmidt, Joe Romm, the 350.org creep – ah, McKibben, John Cook, are all dishonest bastards. Everyone of them knows what he’s doing.
Yes, which is why it surprises me that Gavin let’s that graph stay. I guess he’s given up his pretenses.
He needs to make sure NASA gets their 1.2 bn USD for the Global Warming scare as long as possible.
It’s gonna be a cold winter…I saw the Indians putting up a lot of firewood…. 🙂
if anyone hasn’t heard the whole joke:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/11/winter_weather_joke.html
LOL….thanks Dan, haven’t heard that one in a long time!
😆
That graph is wrong on so many different levels. Their showing it and making something out of Marcott’s reconstruction post 1850 amounts to a parlor trick.
Yes. And, I need to thank you! I was able to sneak another persona back onto HuffPo!!! We’ll see how long it takes them to ban me again.
LOL, It appears I got banned now. None of the replies I made this morning got posted. The thing is I did’t break any site rules. I guess they don’t like it when someone can defend their position when that position goes against their ideology. They cut me off when I delivered the coup de gras.
LOL…you two!
I don’t understand the banning thing….everyone just comes back with a different handle…and that makes it look like even more people
True. That was my plan 😉
Oh boy! It looks like someone found my last comment in the bit bucket and decided to let it see light. It took over two hours but it suddenly showed up. It’s going to be fun from here. 😀
LOL, yeh, that’s another ploy of theirs. Wait until no one will see the comment. You’ll know when you get the message, “This email has been permanently removed …..” They’re hilarious.
Ah yes. That thought entered my mind. I was thinking either they wanted to wait until the audience moved on so nobody would notice or were buying time for some big gun to step in and thoroughly trash our arguments. Sly they are.
They must pay some moron to do that kind of manipulation.
A colleague of mine who considers himself a conservative – I always correct him and tell him that he sounds like a typical collectivist – proudly proclaimed today that he found an American medium he likes. I asked, which one. He said HuffPo. I told him they’re far out loony left.
He’s such an idiot. But he takes it in stride. He’s one of my bosses, actually.
So he is a PHB?
They must.
I’ve been debating the article HuffPo posted several days back claiming that the Colorado flood was caused by global warming. I’m driving the locals crazy. LOL, I got chewed out by one person for having an unfair advantage by being well versed on the subject. Think about that. My opinion should not be expressed because I know the subject too well. Typical leftist thinking.
“My opinion should not be expressed because I know the subject too well.”
LOL! Next you’ll demand that the liberal you’re debating isn’t stoned!
LOL!!! Yep, that’s the HuffPo I’ve come to know and love!!! Hank what’s wrong with you commenting about stuff you know about?!?!?! It’s just not fair!!! That’s why I often drink when arguing with leftards. It makes it fair and interesting. Or to steal a phrase and paraphrasing, …… beating leftards with half by brain tied behind my back!
I’m splitting a gut laughing at the “half my brain tied behind my back.” 😆
Seriously, I’m trying to not be so unfair. I had two glasses of Cabernet when you stepped in and started tying them up with your cruel logic. 😀
I’m glad you’re drinking. You’re conscience can be clear then. 😀
Religions do not tolerate dissent.