• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

NASA ignores the genius of Anthony Watts and will launch 1/2 billion dollar CO2 Satt.

Steeltime said:
Polo ... I knew you were only partially literate, not open to reasonable discussion, refused to debate facts and instead veered inevitably into your ad hominem attacks to cover your lack of reasoned opposition, struggled with basic grammar and spelling, but until now, I was unaware that you steal other people's written work and claim it as your own.

Specifically, you re-posted, verbatim, this blog publication and failed to cite your source, or give any indication that the written work was stolen from somebody else:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/mccarthyism-my-foot-stoat-has-story.html

As a matter of copyright law, when you quote another's work, you should (1) provide some indication of the fact that certain material is quoted from a source and is not of your own creation, and (2) provide a citation to the source to provide proper accreditation to the actual author. I denote quoted materials by putting such text in italics.

You have done neither of the above. Word to the wise - if you steal somebody else's work again, I will notify the author of your theft.

Critical thinking: F
First-hand reasoning: F
Proper accreditation: F
Adherence to copyright laws: F
Honesty: F
Complex reasoning: F
Being a low-life thief and rat-faced weasel: A

Hey, I finally found your strong suit.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to notify Anthony Watts that you won't link to his 'work' as well...lol
 
Steeltime said:
Polo ... I knew you were only partially literate, not open to reasonable discussion, refused to debate facts and instead veered inevitably into your ad hominem attacks to cover your lack of reasoned opposition, struggled with basic grammar and spelling, but until now, I was unaware that you steal other people's written work and claim it as your own.

Specifically, you re-posted, verbatim, this blog publication and failed to cite your source, or give any indication that the written work was stolen from somebody else:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/mccarthyism-my-foot-stoat-has-story.html

As a matter of copyright law, when you quote another's work, you should (1) provide some indication of the fact that certain material is quoted from a source and is not of your own creation, and (2) provide a citation to the source to provide proper accreditation to the actual author. I denote quoted materials by putting such text in italics.

You have done neither of the above. Word to the wise - if you steal somebody else's work again, I will notify the author of your theft.

Critical thinking: F
First-hand reasoning: F
Proper accreditation: F
Adherence to copyright laws: F
Honesty: F
Complex reasoning: F
Being a low-life thief and rat-faced weasel: A

Hey, I finally found your strong suit.
Click to expand...
Busted. Wow. What a lame ***. This **** should be grounds for banning - claiming someone else's content as your own.
 
CharlesDavenport said:
Busted. Wow. What a lame ***. This **** should be grounds for banning - claiming someone else's content as your own.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim anything. Don't be a complete dumbass like steeltime, one is enough.

I know you can't appreciate the logical reaming each one of you is receiving right now. Maybe one day when you grow up you will.
 
PoloMalo43 said:
I didn't claim anything. Don't be a complete dumbass like steeltime, one is enough.

I know you can't appreciate the logical reaming each one of you is receiving right now. Maybe one day when you grow up you will.
Click to expand...
You are pathetic. Truly.
 
Steeltime said:
Polo says that this evidence shows that adjustments do NOT create an artificial increase in temperature readings:

zhang_et_al_homogenization_china_fig5.png


Yes, Polo really is that stupid.

Critical analysis: F
Critical reasoning: F
Language use: F
Evaluation of data: F

Final grade: F

Once again, Polo's point of view in this discussion:
Click to expand...

No I never made such a claim, again STRAWMAN your favorite tactic. My claim was that data has to be homogenized or else you get a ridiculous amount of bias in the raw data as the black line in those graphs show.

Did Beijing experience a construction boom from 1980-2000 contributing to heat island effect, then suddenly that heating just fell off a cliff after they moved the station to the suburbs in 1996? How does that much of a discrepancy happen?

Here is part of your post on page 3:

Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.

My point was that the paper you cited is flawed, it used the wrong homogenization methodologies and greatly overestimated the warming.

From my post on page 3:

Implications
It could be that the authors selected the right homogenization method for this specific study, but did not realize that their method is not standard and should not be used to study global warming. They namely suggest that it should be studied whether their results have implications for homogenization in general, which is not the case. As The Hockey Schtick and Anthony Watts cite from the article:

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

The sentence in the article is:

"Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change."

I will leave it as exercise for the reader, whether our climate ostriches should have cited the full sentence because the second part is important for its understanding. I would at least have indicated citing only the first part by ending with three dots ..., and not adding one.

I would say that the full sentence just states that you should not only homogenize the break inhomogeneities, but also the gradual inhomogeneities. That is right. James Hansen et al. already wrote so in 2001:

"It follows that a necessary concomitant of discontinuity adjustments is an adequate correction for urban warming. Otherwise, if the discontinuities in the temperature record have a predominance of downward jumps over upward jumps, the adjustments may introduce a false warming, as in Figure 1. This might happen, for example, if it is more common for stations to move from population centers toward the suburbs, rather than vice versa."


Hansen explains to us clearly in that last paragraph why the method the Chinese used is screwed up. They are claiming that ‘yes you need to adjust the data’ then they use the wrong method and speculate that the trend is being overestimated and adjustment methods have to be reevaluated.

An error leading to an assumption that again is in error.

Read what I highlighted in red then look at the black lines in the graphs again.

Do you need a ride? I’ll call you a clown car taxi if you promise not to throw a fit when you realize you’ve been reamed.......again.

I'm the guy on the left staying calm dropping logic bombs,steeltime on the right suddenly feels a burning sensation in his mind and his reamed anus. Good times ensue.

 
Last edited:
bye for a week polo....I warned you about the videos......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top