Climate Models for the Layman

[Poor Debater]

Thats particularly ironic coming from you and your history of doctoring graphs and charts to get them to say what you want them to :roll:

False and libellous. Please point out a single doctored datapoint on any graph I have published. Or retract your lie.

 

[Poor Debater]

No, I used your method with solar and used an unspecified lag. The only difference was my lag was more than 20 years.

Since solar activity has an 11-year period, lags longer than that are physically meaningless. But your "method" isn't based on physics, it's based on the well-known method of "finding something mathematical and who cares about conservation of energy." Well known, and unscientific.

Keep in mind, I was showing how ignorant it is to think such a correlation is correct.

If you think my correlation is incorrect, please show us how it is incorrect. You have not challenged a single datapoint in my graph. So are you challenging the math?

I most certainly will not contend that simplistic method was correct for solar, just like I contend it is not correct for CO2.

Fine, then we agree that your solar hand-waving is a meaningless smokescreen. But you still have failed to show why CO2 does not drive climate change.

 

[flogger]

False and libellous. Please point out a single doctored datapoint on any graph I have published. Or retract your lie.

I was absolutely dying for you to say that and I knew given time you were so desperate that eventually you couldn't help yourself.

Here is what you did with the peer reviewed graph of 4000 year ice core temperature data from Kobashi 2011 I posted some time ago

Here is the orginal



And then we have your doctored version



There are very few alarmists quite so extreme that they would go to the effort of doing something like this

 

[Jack Hays]

I was absolutely dying for you to say that and I knew given time you were so desperate that eventually you couldn't help yourself.

Here is what you did with the peer reviewed graph of 4000 year ice core temperature data from Kobashi 2011 I posted some time ago

Here is the orginal

View attachment 67215184

And then we have your doctored version

View attachment 67215185

There are very few alarmists quite so extreme that they would go to the effort of doing something like this

Yikes!

 

[flogger]

Yikes!

Something to bear in mind when this guy posts anything in the future.

 

[Jack Hays]

Something to bear in mind when this guy posts anything in the future.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

 

[Poor Debater]

I was absolutely dying for you to say that and I knew given time you were so desperate that eventually you couldn't help yourself.

Here is what you did with the peer reviewed graph of 4000 year ice core temperature data from Kobashi 2011 I posted some time ago

Here is the orginal

View attachment 67215184

And then we have your doctored version

View attachment 67215185

There are very few alarmists quite so extreme that they would go to the effort of doing something like this

Are you claiming that the single contemporary datapoint I added to that graph for comparison purposes is fraudulent?
Yes or no?

 

[flogger]

Are you claiming that the single contemporary datapoint I added to that graph for comparison purposes is fraudulent?
Yes or no?

Of course it was and you knew it. This is a graph of smoothed ice core proxies that you thought you would be able to visually distort it by overlaying unsmoothed modern instrumental data to it

You must be really desperate to go to this kind of effort and you have really embarrassed yourself with it. Guys like you are a gift to the skeptic position

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course it was and you knew it. This is a graph of smoothed ice core proxies that you thought you would be able to visually distort it by overlaying unsmoothed modern instrumental data to it

You must be really desperate to go to this kind of effort and you have really embarrassed yourself with it. Guys like you are a gift to the skeptic position

:bomb::smash:

 

[Poor Debater]

Of course it was and you knew it. This is a graph of smoothed ice core proxies that you thought you would be able to visually distort it by overlaying unsmoothed modern instrumental data to it

You must be really desperate to go to this kind of effort and you have really embarrassed yourself with it. Guys like you are a gift to the skeptic position

So, you're complaint is that I did exactly the same thing Kobashi et al. themselves did, in the exact same figure?? You know, that 2/3 of the figure that you deleted before posting?

And you think that I'm the one being fraudulent, by restoring the exact same datapoint that the authors themselves included, but that you deleted?

That's your definition of "fraud", huh? You've completely lost your moral compass.

 

[flogger]

So, you're complaint is that I did exactly the same thing Kobashi et al. themselves did, in the exact same figure?? You know, that 2/3 of the figure that you deleted before posting?

No they didn't it was you deliberately conflating their proxy record with the instrumental one as can be seen here

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

You knew exactly what you were doing and why you had to given what the proxy data on their 4000 year graph showed

 

[Poor Debater]

No they didn't it was you deliberately conflating their proxy record with the instrumental one as can be seen here

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

You knew exactly what you were doing and why you had to given what the proxy data on their 4000 year graph showed

Utterly false.

Kobashi et al. published a graph with data. You deleted 2/3 of that graph, deliberately hiding that data from your audience in an attempt to deliberately mislead.

Then, when I restored just one point of the data you fraudulently deleted, you're complaining that I'm being fraudulent. You're doing that as a transparent attempt to cover up your own fraud.

Despicable.

 

[flogger]

Utterly false.

Kobashi et al. published a graph with data. You deleted 2/3 of that graph, deliberately hiding that data from your audience in an attempt to deliberately mislead.

Then, when I restored just one point of the data you fraudulently deleted, you're complaining that I'm being fraudulent. You're doing that as a transparent attempt to cover up your own fraud.

Despicable.

You just can't help yourself can you ?

I posted the peer review in its entirety and I'm completely confident the 'audience' will be able to easily work out for themselves what you have gotten up to with its graphs and why

 

[Poor Debater]

You just can't help yourself can you ?

I posted the peer review in its entirety and I'm completely confident the 'audience' will be able to easily work out for themselves what you have gotten up to with its graphs and why

You posted the peer-review in its entirety only after I pointed out your fraudulent use of Figure 1.

And it's transparently obvious why in previous posts you deleted the data that refuted your political views. My restoration of your fraudulent deletions was an act of honesty. Your deletions were an act of dishonesty.

 

[Jack Hays]

You posted the peer-review in its entirety only after I pointed out your fraudulent use of Figure 1.

And it's transparently obvious why in previous posts you deleted the data that refuted your political views. My restoration of your fraudulent deletions was an act of honesty. Your deletions were an act of dishonesty.

It looks to me like you took a data point off the 170 year graph and attached it to the 4,000 year graph.

 

[flogger]

You posted the peer-review in its entirety only after I pointed out your fraudulent use of Figure 1.

What fraudulent use of figure 1 ?

And it's transparently obvious why in previous posts you deleted the data that refuted your political views. My restoration of your fraudulent deletions was an act of honesty. Your deletions were an act of dishonesty.

But the study was of ice core temperature proxies over the last 4000 years and I simply posted the graph of that which you then altered

 

[Poor Debater]

It looks to me like you took a data point off the 170 year graph and attached it to the 4,000 year graph.

It looks to me like flogger deleted the 170 year graph entirely, to mislead you, and everyone else, about the true extent of the data.

But I'm not surprised to see that you're totally on board with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific data. Jack.

 

[Poor Debater]

What fraudulent use of figure 1 ?

The deliberate deletion of 2/3 of it, in order to mislead your audience.

But the study was of ice core temperature proxies over the last 4000 years and I simply posted the graph of that which you then altered

You altered the graph by chopping off 2/3 of it, in order to deliberately mislead. That's despicable behavior.

I restored one of the data points you deleted. That's honest behavior.

 

[flogger]

It looks to me like flogger deleted the 170 year graph entirely, to mislead you, and everyone else, about the true extent of the data.

But I'm not surprised to see that you're totally on board with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific data. Jack.

I know you know the difference between instrumental and proxy data and we both know what you tried to do by mixing the two.

Man up fella you got caught :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

It looks to me like flogger deleted the 170 year graph entirely, to mislead you, and everyone else, about the true extent of the data.

But I'm not surprised to see that you're totally on board with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific data. Jack.

Excellent chutzpah. You're the one moving a data point from one graph to another, and you're accusing others of misrepresentation? I fear the irony meter may break under the strain.

 

[Poor Debater]

I know you know the difference between instrumental and proxy data and we both know what you tried to do by mixing the two.

Man up fella you got caught :roll:

All I did was restore the Kobashi et al. data that you deleted. You were dishonest to delete it in the first place, as you yourself have conceded by your belated posting of the entire paper.

 

[flogger]

I restored one of the data points you deleted. That's honest behavior.

No you added an instrumental temperature data point on a graph of temperature proxies that was never on the 4000 year graph in order to visually distort it ?

 

[Poor Debater]

Excellent chutzpah. You're the one moving a data point from one graph to another, and you're accusing others of misrepresentation? I fear the irony meter may break under the strain.

No I'm not. I'm taking the data from figure 1 that flogger deleted, and restoring it. And gullible Jack never once thinks to wonder ... why did flogger delete 2/3 of Figure 1? What was on Figure 1 that flogger didn't want gullible Jack to see?

 

[Jack Hays]

All I did was restore the Kobashi et al. data that you deleted. You were dishonest to delete it in the first place, as you yourself have conceded by your belated posting of the entire paper.

I don't like to use the word "liar" so I'll just suggest your pants may be on fire. :flames::liar2

 

[Jack Hays]

No I'm not. I'm taking the data from figure 1 that flogger deleted, and restoring it. And gullible Jack never once thinks to wonder ... why did flogger delete 2/3 of Figure 1? What was on Figure 1 that flogger didn't want gullible Jack to see?

I don't like to use the word "liar" so I'll just suggest your pants may be on fire. :flames::liar2