[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I am familiar with this. Read back in the Science Journal thread, most science now is done through statistical analysis. Kringing is a valid technique that's used a bit in Quantum Physics because measuring quarks is pretty much impossible. It's tried and true math.

And there is Satellite measurement of temperature through the Arctic. But it's not as accurate as a ground station, so the difference must be extrapolated based on known experimental data. Not as accurate, but far more accurate than no temperature information at all.

But again all we are concerned with here is what the controversy was. It was not whether or not satellite measurements were valid. The controversy was whether or not the method used to fabricate the missing grid cell data was valid.

At that early time another site you were linked to said this regarding what some of the controversy was concerning how Kriging was used.

$1:

Nor do efforts to apply kriging seem misplaced to me in principle. On the contrary, for someone with experience in ore reserves, it seems entirely natural e.g. see for example, some of Jeff Id’s discussion of Antarctica. I notice that their methodology results in changes to the Central England gridcell. While I don’t object to the use of kriging or similar methods to estimate values in missing gridcells, I don’t see any benefit to altering values in known gridcells, if that’s what’s happening here. (I haven’t parsed their methods and don’t plan to do so at this time.)

Here's a thing then. The reason the Blog, you used to describe the paper was so thrilled about it was it showed what is called the climate pause disappearing. The climate pause is the fact that there has been no statistical warming in 17 years.

But if the controversy concerning Cowtan and Way is only about satellite temps, why do the actual global satellite climate temps still show the climate pause?

You say the temperatures created by the magic math are more accurate. I disagree. Doesn't matter for what we are discussing here. The controversy was not about the satellite temps. It was about the tricky math used in that case, and whether or not it was valid there.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's a thing then. The reason the Blog, {connection lost}

Why should I continue with your argument any further than that, if you continue to insist it was a blog?

[N_Fiddledog]

I would advise you use that excuse or any other you can come up with to flee the argument.

You've lost it.

And BTW it was a blog you used to describe the study. Go ahead post that thread in some other topic. See if that fact changes.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I would advise you use that excuse or any other you can come up with to flee the argument.

You've lost it.

And BTW it was a blog you used to describe the study. Go ahead post that thread in some other topic. See if that fact changes.

You refuse to first accept that the paper published by the RMS is not on a blog. We went through 4 pages of debate before you'd finally admit you weren't debating the paper, but a reporters dumbing down of a scientific paper for the masses. I also posted several other versions of the exact same story, but somehow those escaped your attention. I can only assume it's because your talking points were derived from the 'blog' you are so fond of building strawmen with, and not on the actual peer reviewed study.

Now you want to spend 2 pages getting back to where we left off in the last thread?

Mmmmmm, no. If this story 'cold weather record' from several years ago is perfectly acceptable, but a study by the RMS using the exact same satellite data isn't - that's just a form of the Genetic fallacy.

Game. Set. Match.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Now you want to spend 2 pages getting back to where we left off in the last thread?

I want to do that?

Who posted that damn strawman producing link here looking to rehash an old fight? You did. And just like the last time you're getting you're ass kicked, and refusing to recognize reality. So now you want to talk about everything but the point you created.

On the argument here that the controversy on your linked thread was not about satellite temperatures. Multiple links on that thread showed the controversy concerned making up data with magic math, not satellite temperatures. Satellite temperatures by themselves continued to show a climate pause. Nobody was critiquing satellite temps, so when you post an old thread here saying the fight was about satellite temps, it wasn't, and the lie saying it was, was the soul purpose of your posting the link here.

So again, what is it with you silly people creating strawman arguments then accusing anybody who disagrees with them of creating them? My original point was the radical weather instance mentioned in the OP was similar to Gore and others suggesting any old radical weather, even a heavy storm like Sandy proves global warming. That was relevant, and anyway it was posted with a winkie. It was a relevant wink. You then posted some old thread you had to know was going to cause an argument, and suggested it was debated before because there was a disagreement on whether satellite temperatures counted. That was a lie. How was it a strawman argument to point out your strawman argument was a lie.

So now that you've brought us that old argument though, and with it came the question of whether an activist blog is pushing a particular point of view when it describes a study. Here's another one from the blog Hot Air pushing a study telling you temperatures were warmer in Roman times than they are today.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/13/s ... han-today/

Now is that blog a blog, or does it stop being a blog because it's pushing a study?

You see this is what happens when you post an irrelevant link to an old argument. It must then be rehashed along with the arguments that came with it. You brought it, not me. You complaining about it now is just a case of the skunk smelling its own hole first.

[Gunnair]

Dick measurements are done by rep points. You should turn yours on to show your massive length.