Minn. For Global Warming per Watts Paper 2012

Just for anyone who didn’t catch it in the flyby…

Watts paper announcement here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background, Favorites, Humor and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Minn. For Global Warming per Watts Paper 2012

  1. Andrew Newberg says:

    Great effort by Minnesotans for Global Warming!
    They named the names of the three generals…would Real Climate qualify as the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?

    I apologize for sinking into the realm of Reductio ad Hitlerum, but in the context of the video it seems to fit.

  2. Joanie says:

    “Their blogs are BIGGER!” “Their videos are funnier!” HA HA HA HA!!! “No one will be afraid of a stick graph!” Love it!

  3. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Read all the paper as soon as it was posted, took a while. Bottom line tells us the same thing that the spokesman for NOAA said, we “manipulate” adjust the record to best agree with our computer models as raw data falls outside the models parameters.

    They adjust the poor station data up to match the models and then adjust the good data up to match the poor station data. At least doubling the the warming signal.

    THEY MANIPULATE THE DATA! and Watts et al agrees. The data is manipulated to agree with the computer models. The use of major airports for reference data is just frosting on the cake. pg

  4. Ian W says:

    This is as bad as the LIBOR rate fixing. Manipulating data for your own gain killing industries in the process and reducing the capability of the ‘first world’ to assist the ‘third’ world instead keeping the poorer countries without energy to improve living conditions and no clean water. Criminal action is being taken against the rate manipulators in the banks; when is criminal action going to be taken against the data manipulators in climate science? , .

  5. philjourdan says:

    I kind of feel sorry for that actor. He will never get another job as virtually EVERYONE in the internet world has seen him in this video – with different sub titles.

    M4GW really did a great parody as well!

  6. R. de Haan says:

    Stephen Wild IMO has the correct view on the WATTS paper as published at Climate Realists:
    Posted by Stephen Wilde (forum) on Jul 30th 2012, 6:13 AM EDT
    To all those who pick at details and suggest that the Watts paper might not be taken seriously I would just say that the basic approach and the results are what matter.

    It is now in the public domain that there is a much better site assessment procedure which has not previously been methodically applied.

    Also, that when it is applied, the difference in trend between sites of differing qualities becomes apparent. The most important point of Muller’s work was that there were no significant trend differences between sites of differing qualities.

    The science has moved on such that the earlier assertions of Muller and the entire climate establishment are now out of date. They should graciously acknowledge that fact.

    Leroy 2010 has been a time bomb waiting to go off and this paper has lit the fuse.

    All else is chaff.

    That is not to deny that warming has occurred but it does reduce it substantially from what we have been led to believe.

    In the meantime natural variability is being shown to have a greater influence than previously recognised.

    Those two factors combine to squeeze AGW into insignificance for policy purposes.

  7. Pascvaks says:

    Had a phonecon with my little sister the other day. She asked if I’d been to church lately. Said, nope, don’t need to, that if she remembered correctly, way back when we were kids the Nuns said if we went to 9 First Fridays, or did some other things I couldn’t remember, that we were guaranteed a ticket to heaven. She said that was 55-60 years ago. I said, that’s right, so what?

    You guys know as well as I do that the stupid stuff we’re told as kids has a way of sticking to us like dried peanut butter or paint, and that just because the hyper-idiots of AGW are being proved wrong, that doesn’t mean a generation or two of a few billion kids aren’t going to go to their graves thinking, “Gee, what if the world is going to hell, and it was all my fault, and maybe I better send a check to the World Wildlife Fund before I kick the bucket, cause if I don’t, G-d will hold it against me, and I won’t get my palace in the clouds (or 29 Virgins;-), and I’ll burn in hell forever and always.”

    Not saying everyone’s like me and will cover all the numbers on the table like I have, do, will, but I know there’s a few more like me too, and we’re real careful and remember what those Nun’s and psyentists said a hundred years ago. And, we’ll always wonder, “What if they were right? (SarcOff;-)

    It pays to own a million grade school teachers, it really does. Especially if they’re Union Members AND Nuns.

  8. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    There’s been a long laundry list of “things” that account for 1/4 to 1/2 of the “warming to date” due to various non-CO2 things. This is yet another of them. So if more than one of them is “valid” at the same time, there is nothing at all left over as warming. From particulates to solar changes to siting to ‘dodgey adjustments to …

    It would be interesting to collect all the various “and this is {fractional} mistake too!” links in one place and total it up ;-)

    But I don’t have time to find the links right now 8-{

    @Pascvaks:

    While “propaganda to the kids” is a standard in all sorts of political movements (from Fascists to Communists to Right Wingers) the simple fact is that it doesn’t really work all that well in the face of facts to the contrary (or just contrary kids…)

    During the ’60s and early ’70s we were subjected to a load of “pro-war” propaganda. (Viet Nam and the draft and all). The result was the “generation of love” and “peace-nicks”. We were subjected to incessant propaganda about the “evil weed”. The result was more M.J. smoking than ever before. Heck, even a hard core straight laced geek ( i.e. Me) tried it.

    Already some of my kids generation is highly resistant to the Green Message. They have been force fed it their whole lives and are tired of it. The statistics show they are much more skeptical about Global Warming, for example, than most of their parents.

    So while I’d rather schools stuck to “The Three Rs”; I’m pretty sure it will do nothing for The Agenda to make it mandated in school…

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @PhilJourdan:

    He can always get a job on Star Trek (or similar Sci-Fi) as an alien under a load of makeup ;-)

  10. adolfogiurfa says:

    Never the less, today in Amanpour´s show in CNN have said that “someday deniers will have to appear here in your program to admit they were wrong”

  11. R. de Haan says:

    On the other hand we have another Senate testemony from Christy: No connection between CO2 and extreme weather events and more… http://climategate.nl/2012/08/02/video-john-christys-getuigenis-voor-de-us-senate/

  12. R. de Haan says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    31 July 2012 at 7:43 pm
    @R. de Haan:

    “There’s been a long laundry list of “things” that account for 1/4 to 1/2 of the “warming to date” due to various non-CO2 things. This is yet another of them. So if more than one of them is “valid” at the same time, there is nothing at all left over as warming. From particulates to solar changes to siting to ‘dodgey adjustments to …”

    It would be interesting to collect all the various “and this is {fractional} mistake too!” links in one place and total it up ;-)

    But I don’t have time to find the links right now 8-{

    I agree but but the basic problem we have today is that the climate models which are the basis of all Government CO2 reduction schemes, regulations and taxes, don’t comply with our observations and our observations completely eliminate the basis for any Govenment policy. That IMO is the core of the current problem (see Chistys Senate Testemony)

Comments are closed.