Stefan Rahmstorf's Deceptive Manipulation of Temperature Charts

[Jack Hays]

The whole article is Germanophobic tripe - I just chose to highlight his idiotic claims about the validity of German academic qualifications as an example. But you feel free to believe his lies. You do, after all, seem to have an infinite capacity for credibility.

Hard to call it Germanophobic when a German (his spouse) agrees, and a principal source is Der Spiegel. I understand you want to deflect to this side issue because you want to avoid the thread topic.

 

[Jack Hays]

​

​

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion




Posted in the comments.

Krishna Gans freupipi . • a month agoI find it always fascinating or bold as H. Rahmstorf, who sees himself as a scientist does not act according to scientific principles, i.a. by assuming that he and his colleagues are the sole owners of the truth, that he and his colleagues consider themselves flawless and believe that anyone who says otherwise is a denier, unscientific, unclean, have not read this or that or misunderstood it, tells nonsenses.
He writes to newspapers and journalists to trim them in line, if they should ever publish something critical, which happens rarely enough, and refers to a fictitious consensus that 1. does not exist and 2. is obsolete in the scientific debate.
There are not much scientists who trample the freedom of research and science under foot in the way that a H. Rahmstorf does.
(translation by google)

 

[Surface Detail]

Hard to call it Germanophobic when a German (his spouse) agrees, and a principal source is Der Spiegel. I understand you want to deflect to this side issue because you want to avoid the thread topic.

He says his spouse agrees. Given that he is lying about German qualifications, how do we know he isn't lying about that? Why would you trust any information from someone who is a proven liar? And no, his claims about German qualifications are not from Der Spiegel. Stop lying.

 

[Jack Hays]

He says his spouse agrees. Given that he is lying about German qualifications, how do we know he isn't lying about that? Why would you trust any information from someone who is a proven liar? And no, his claims about German qualifications are not from Der Spiegel. Stop lying.

The claims about qualifications are indeed not from Der Spiegel. No one said they were, so it looks like I'm not the one who's lying. Der Spiegel just describes the jackassery of SR's behavior. And I don't think the author is lying about German qualifications either, that's just your propaganda spin. I've heard academics (Germans, Americans, others) go round and round about this at some length. So just get off your high horse and stop dodging the thread topic.

 

[Surface Detail]

The claims about qualifications are indeed not from Der Spiegel. No one said they were, so it looks like I'm not the one who's lying. Der Spiegel just describes the jackassery of SR's behavior. And I don't think the author is lying about German qualifications either, that's just your propaganda spin. I've heard academics (Germans, Americans, others) go round and round about this at some length. So just get off your high horse and stop dodging the thread topic.

It is a simple matter of fact that both the German Diplom and the US Masters are classed as ISCED level 7 qualifications and are therefore equivalent. It is not my opinion. It is a concrete fact. Why are you unable to distinguish fact and opinion? You live in a fantasy world and are a proven liar. The idea that you socialise with academics is laughable. Why would anyone believe anything you write?

 

[Jack Hays]

It is a simple matter of fact that both the German Diplom and the US Masters are classed as ISCED level 7 qualifications and are therefore equivalent. It is not my opinion. It is a concrete fact. Why are you unable to distinguish fact and opinion? You live in a fantasy world and are a proven liar. The idea that you socialise with academics is laughable. Why would anyone believe anything you write?

You cannot insult your way to success in a debate.
The relative merits of different countries' qualifications are a subject of debate because they are classed the same, not in spite of their classification.
Not that it's any of your business, but I was just this past Sunday one of three invited speakers at a celebration of the life of a retired senior scientist from the US Geological Survey who recently passed away. Why me? Our 43-year friendship.
Do you have anything to offer concerning the thread topic?

 

[Surface Detail]

You cannot insult your way to success in a debate.
The relative merits of different countries' qualifications are a subject of debate because they are classed the same, not in spite of their classification.
Not that it's any of your business, but I was just this past Sunday one of three invited speakers at a celebration of the life of a retired senior scientist from the US Geological Survey who recently passed away. Why me? Our 43-year friendship.
Do you have anything to offer concerning the thread topic?

You haven't presented any debate about the respective merits of US and German qualifications, just a factually inaccurate tirade against the German education system. You really should stop basing your opinions on bloggers' fantasies.

The thread topic isn't worthy of comment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science and is simple slander of a top climate scientist by a malicious blogger. It is frankly disgraceful of you to post such garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Jack Hays]

You haven't presented any debate about the respective merits of US and German qualifications, just a factually inaccurate tirade against the German education system. You really should stop basing your opinions on bloggers' fantasies.

The thread topic isn't worthy of comment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science and is simple slander of a top climate scientist by a malicious blogger. It is frankly disgraceful of you to post such garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why is it slander if the facts are clear that the charts were manipulated?

 

[Surface Detail]

Why is it slander if the facts are clear that the charts were manipulated?

I see you are still struggling to distinguish facts from opinion. Those are not facts. That is an opinion expressed in a blog post by some nutcase with an axe to grind. Please try to learn the difference.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see you are still struggling to distinguish facts from opinion. Those are not facts. That is an opinion expressed in a blog post by some nutcase with an axe to grind. Please try to learn the difference.

The manipulated charts are not in dispute.

 

[Surface Detail]

The manipulated charts are not in dispute.

Michael Krueger's claim that Stefan Rahmstorf manipulated graphs is nonsense. Why do you believe this crap?

 

[Jack Hays]

Michael Krueger's claim that Stefan Rahmstorf manipulated graphs is nonsense. Why do you believe this crap?

The evidence is plain and public.

 

[Surface Detail]

The evidence is plain and public.

Then explain in your own words how you think Stefan Rahmstorf has manipulated graphs.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then explain in your own words how you think Stefan Rahmstorf has manipulated graphs.

He ended his chart with 2016, to hide the declines in 2017 and 2018.

 

[Surface Detail]

He ended his chart with 2016, to hide the declines in 2017 and 2018.

Seriously? You think that the publication of a slightly out-of-date graph (the current version of which is widely available) on a private blog amounts to manipulation? :shock: :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Seriously? You think that the publication of a slightly out-of-date graph (the current version of which is widely available) on a private blog amounts to manipulation? :shock: :lamo

Yes. He lied. After being called out, he added 2017, but not 2018. He knew he had been caught.

 

[Surface Detail]

Yes. He lied. After being called out, he added 2017, but not 2018. He knew he had been caught.

Don't be absurd. Posting a graph on your own private blog that isn't bang-up-to-date isn't manipulation or lying. What about all your posts of graphs that terminate in the last century? Are you therefore also guilty of graph manipulation?

And anyway, he couldn't possibly post the data for 2018, given that it hasn't even been released yet!

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't be absurd. Posting a graph on your own private blog that isn't bang-up-to-date isn't manipulation or lying. What about all your posts of graphs that terminate in the last century? Are you therefore also guilty of graph manipulation?

And anyway, he couldn't possibly post the data for 2018, given that it hasn't even been released yet!

You yourself accused Nir Shaviv of lying with graphs, so stop whining when the boomerang comes back. The difference of course is that Shaviv is known to be an honest man, while Rahmstorf's reputation is that of a lying snake.

Others seem to have the 2018 data.

". . . In the year 2016 we were at +1°C temperature anomaly according to NASA (a new record!), but today in the year 2018 only at 0.8°C. Mr. Rahmstorf obviously wanted to hide this by cleverly truncating at 2016, probably with the hope his lay public would not notice it? . . . "

 

[Surface Detail]

You yourself accused Nir Shaviv of lying with graphs, so stop whining when the boomerang comes back. The difference of course is that Shaviv is known to be an honest man, while Rahmstorf's reputation is that of a lying snake.

Others seem to have the 2018 data.

". . . In the year 2016 we were at +1°C temperature anomaly according to NASA (a new record!), but today in the year 2018 only at 0.8°C. Mr. Rahmstorf obviously wanted to hide this by cleverly truncating at 2016, probably with the hope his lay public would not notice it? . . . "

Sorry, but whoever has written that is a lying toe-rag. The 2018 NASA data has not yet been released due to the US governmental shutdown. And Rahmstorf has a fine reputation as a climate researcher and has won numerous awards and honors for his work. Obviously, though, this makes him a natural target for the hate-filled science deniers.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, but whoever has written that is a lying toe-rag. The 2018 NASA data has not yet been released due to the US governmental shutdown. And Rahmstorf has a fine reputation as a climate researcher and has won numerous awards and honors for his work. Obviously, though, this makes him a natural target for the hate-filled science deniers.

NASA 2018 data are available at least through November.
As for Rahmstorf's reputation, I refer you to Der Spiegel.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Rough Methods of Climate Researcher Rahmstorf[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Quaestio]

Don't be absurd. Posting a graph on your own private blog that isn't bang-up-to-date isn't manipulation or lying. What about all your posts of graphs that terminate in the last century? Are you therefore also guilty of graph manipulation?

And anyway, he couldn't possibly post the data for 2018, given that it hasn't even been released yet!

LOL! Jack posts crap dishonest graphics from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs all the time. I especially remember a graphic based on the GISP2 Greenland ice core data set (which ends in 1855). It was from Tim Ball on the WUWT blog and was falsely labelled to try to show there had been no increase in average global temperature in the 20th century.

Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs are always attacking reputable scientists and promoting nonsense and lies from dishonest hacks

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL! Jack posts crap dishonest graphics from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs all the time. I especially remember a graphic based on the GISP2 Greenland ice core data set (which ends in 1855). It was from Tim Ball on the WUWT blog and was falsely labelled to try to show there had been no increase in average global temperature in the 20th century.

Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs are always attacking reputable scientists and promoting nonsense and lies from dishonest hacks

If you are going to post a falsehood you should at least try to make up a new one.

 

[Quaestio]

If you are going to post a falsehood you should at least try to make up a new one.

Not a falsehood at all. It's true. I can link the posts.

I remember that one particularly one because it literally showed the "present global" temperature as ~minus 32C, and you called it "accurate" and "highly relevant".

It was hilarious. :lamo

 

[Quaestio]

It's not surprising that Jack believes ridiculous dishonest cranks like Tim Ball, but attacks reputable scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not a falsehood at all. It's true. I can link the posts.

I remember that one particularly one because it literally showed the "present global" temperature as ~minus 32C, and you called it "accurate" and "highly relevant".

It was hilarious. :lamo

That was all explained. By doubling down you turned your error into a lie.