CA posts

Posted Sep 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Posted Sep 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM | Permalink
would you care to ask Watts why he lost his cool over his pet surface stations when his data was used before he published?
Posted Sep 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Steve: around 20% identified themselves as “skeptic”, but some of these responses were fraudulent. The actual number of respondents appears to be much less than that. My guess is that over half of the “skeptic” responses were fake.

How do you KNOW
are you sure some of those calling themselves non-sceptic were fraudulent. (Fraudulent is not the right word much too emotive – but that’s what you are trying to do -whip up a bit of name calling)



  1. Posted 2012/09/28 at 16:04 | Permalink | Reply

    Another lost to moderation

    Posted Sep 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Posted Sep 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM | Permalink
    I don’t believe that anybody with a sceptical bone in their body would have completed that survey
    my comment seemed to get lost so I will repeaat it as it is relevant to your comment

    [Reply: I took the survey. Interesting questions. ~dbs, mod.]

    Djozar says:August 31, 2010 at 10:24 am
    I took the survey; however didn’t see the results. Noted that while most questions were balanced, some seemed biased.

    seems that at the time of the survey at least 2 skeptics considerd it an OK survey and completed it.

    Since the hype NO-ONE will answer truthfully! so the latest wuwt poll is spoiled

  2. Posted 2012/09/30 at 21:42 | Permalink | Reply

    A posting at wuwt will it make it?

    Now here’s a thing I did some time ago for “fun”.
    By combining a series of cosine waves (sine if you like!) you can get a good simulation of Hadcrut3 (not tried hadcrut4) data.
    to get the rise in temperature rather than just matching the little “wiggles” you need 1 of 2 things

    1. either a rising polynomial curve – deltaT = 2.40389E-07date^3 – 1.34093E-03date^2 + 2.49320E+00date – 1.545547E+03
    2. a large 317 year period cosine

    2 fails at early periods and only time will tell if the future is predicted.
    1. is a good fit over the whole of the hadcrut period

    The accuracy or predictive value (=none) is not the important thing here (note the first line of the post). If you take the poly fit curve you will note that it is ever increasing. BUT the 60 year cycle holds the increase to near zero from 1997 until the year 2024.
    This DOESN’T mean that the increase has stopped – it just means there is something else just delaying the increase. – After 2024 the increase now becomes augmented by the 60 year cycle and temperature rises rapidly.

  3. Posted 2012/09/30 at 22:55 | Permalink | Reply

    no a moderator visited the main c&s site and decided not to accept it!!

  4. Posted 2012/10/01 at 01:28 | Permalink | Reply

    the next post

    D Böehm says September 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia.

    You cannot have CO2 reacting to temperature with a delay of a few months from your plots AND have it delayed by 100s of years also from your plots.

    If it reacts now within a year then it will always react within a year.

    Which of your plots is wrong?

  5. Posted 2012/10/01 at 04:27 | Permalink | Reply

    No that didn’t make it either!
    Must have me auto delete again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: