• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Screw Up at Real Climate?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In his eagerness to condemn skeptics, a poster at Real Climate may have screwed the pooch. You decide.


Friday Funny – ‘RealClimate’ gets shipwrecked in the Sargasso Sea

Trond Arne Pettersen writes via Tips and Notes: Something (funny) for you? On realclimate there is a guest post by Mark Boslough. He writes about the cynicism of the deniers and presents two graphs. The first is of paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature. And the second one he claims is a doctored version…
Continue reading →

Something (funny) for you? On realclimate there is a guest post by Mark Boslough. He writes about the cynicism of the deniers and presents two graphs.
The first is of paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature. And the second one he claims is a doctored version that is a misrepresentation of Sargasso Sea temperatures by global warming doubters.
But actually the two graphs are exactly the same. The second is just a mirrored version, the time axis is turned the other way around. He says that the second one falsley claims that the global temperatures were higher 3000 years ago (something other sources say the were). So who has missed the point here, I or Mr Boslough?



 
Was any intelligence expected by their type?
 
As usual it was the hysterical science ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists at WUWT who screwed up (and neither LOP or Jack bothered to do any fact-checking as usual)

Thankfully Nick Stokes was still allowed to post on WUWT to show the OP in detail how the WUWT claims were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
As usual it was the hysterical science ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists at WUWT who screwed up (and neither LOP or Jack bothered to do any fact-checking as usual)

Thankfully Nick Stokes was still allowed to post on WUWT to show the OP in detail how the WUWT claims were wrong.
Click to expand...

Arguing facts not in evidence.
 
Sure Jack. Everyone knows how much time you spend reading and fact-checking your own click-bait spam posts. ;)
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one posting assertions without foundation.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes you are. You do it all the time with your click-bait spam posts to conspiracy blogs.

Btw, loved your latest link to David Icke's (lizardmen conspiracy) crank magnet website.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one posting assertions without foundation.
Click to expand...
Quaestio said:
Actually, yes you are. You do it all the time with your click-bait spam posts to conspiracy blogs.

Btw, loved your latest link to David Icke's (lizardmen conspiracy) crank magnet website.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
And rather than support your claim, you've decided to get childish.
Click to expand...
Quaestio said:
No. Just stating facts in evidence.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. You made a claim about Nick Stokes's comments at WUWT that was not supported by a review of those comments.
Click to expand...
What review? I didn't see you post any comments or reviews of what Nick Stokes posted on WUWT or here.

Your MO is to just post 1000's of click-bait-spam links to conspiracy blogs with no commentary or discussion. The 'evidence' and 'support' - is your post history on this forum.

Anyway Jack, I have a dozen Journal papers I wanted to read this weekend, so I'll leave you to your copying and pasting click-bait spam links to crank magnet 'lizardmen' websites and pseudoscience conspiracy blogs. Have fun.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
What review? I didn't see you post any comments or reviews of what Nick Stokes posted on WUWT or here.

Your MO is to just post lot's of click-bait-spam links to conspiracy blogs with no commentary or discussion. The 'evidence' and 'support' is your post history on this forum.
Click to expand...

The absence of discussion is usually the result of posters ducking the topic. You and I both know Stokes's comments don't do what you claimed.
 
Jack Hays said:
The absence of discussion is usually the result of posters ducking the topic. You and I both know Stokes's comments don't do what you claimed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've noticed you never actually DISCUSS the copy and pasted click-bait spam links you post. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

I'll leave you to have the last word with yourself.
 
Quaestio said:
Yes, I've noticed you never actually DISCUSS the copy and pasted click-bait spam links you post.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...

My interlocutors too often go immediately to ad hominems and name calling. I find that disappointing.
 
Jack Hays said:
In his eagerness to condemn skeptics, a poster at Real Climate may have screwed the pooch. You decide.


Friday Funny – ‘RealClimate’ gets shipwrecked in the Sargasso Sea

Trond Arne Pettersen writes via Tips and Notes: Something (funny) for you? On realclimate there is a guest post by Mark Boslough. He writes about the cynicism of the deniers and presents two graphs. The first is of paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature. And the second one he claims is a doctored version…
Continue reading →

Something (funny) for you? On realclimate there is a guest post by Mark Boslough. He writes about the cynicism of the deniers and presents two graphs.
The first is of paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature. And the second one he claims is a doctored version that is a misrepresentation of Sargasso Sea temperatures by global warming doubters.
But actually the two graphs are exactly the same. The second is just a mirrored version, the time axis is turned the other way around. He says that the second one falsley claims that the global temperatures were higher 3000 years ago (something other sources say the were). So who has missed the point here, I or Mr Boslough?
Click to expand...

Of course you presented the WUWT incompetent spin, and not the original post from Real Climate.

The OP from Real Climate clearly shows that the graphs were doctored in the denier literature to delete recent warming and to pretend the Sargasso Sea is global temperatures.

Thanks for pointing out how blatantly WUWT will lie to get their denier points across, and how eagerly you suck up all their misinformation and spew it here without checking into it. Very instructive to younger and more sensitive DPers.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course you presented the WUWT incompetent spin, and not the original post from Real Climate.

The OP from Real Climate clearly shows that the graphs were doctored in the denier literature to delete recent warming and to pretend the Sargasso Sea is global temperatures.

Thanks for pointing out how blatantly WUWT will lie to get their denier points across, and how eagerly you suck up all their misinformation and spew it here without checking into it. Very instructive to younger and more sensitive DPers.
Click to expand...

Just more RC smokescreening. From the comments at WUWT:

Trond Arne Pettersen
February 4, 2017 at 7:01 am
This is just a tip and far from a complete edit. But when Boslough says the second graph is doctored it sounds a bit serious. And at first glance it can look a bit confusing to the common reader, the graphs really look different. But to be fair, he says that he presents them “as presented” in two different papers. But in spite of pointing out the issue of instrumental data, it could leave some doubt about the whole graph. (Still I did not doubt for a second that Boslough actually was unaware of the opposite direction on the time axis.) So after some cut and paste I found them to be similar, which was not very easy to see in the first place. But this is more than 95% of a tiny graph, where the doctorizing pointed out by Boslough is just a tiny vertical line to the very left in the first graph. For the presentation as a whole, I find it at least a bit funny. And If the splicing is accepted, it still shows that SSTs in The Sargasso Sea was quite a bit higher 3000 years ago than present. And since the Sargasso Se is a fairly large region of the North Atlantic I tend to believe it would have effected global mean temperature quite a bit even if the graph is not a GMT graph. Not to mention other documentations of the Minoan warm period. So a bit funny still. But maybe it is a little bit too much both here and on RC, it can certainly become “Much Ado About Nothing” :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom