Shock News : Anthony Reports That The Temperature Record Sucks – Mosher Disagrees

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Shock News : Anthony Reports That The Temperature Record Sucks – Mosher Disagrees

  1. Dave N says:

    So where’s Moshers paper?

  2. Paul in Sweden says:

    If the rigor applied to climate change work product were equally applied in the financial community, arrests and prosecutions would follow.

    • ozspeaksup says:

      dunno bout that..the banksters are well exposed same as climate frauds, and yet??
      they are all walking free and doing fine on taxpayers funds so far..

  3. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Gleckler et al 2012 which was trumpeted from the rooftops last month showed a SST rise of only 0.125 C in 50 years.

    But it is very hard to build airports and cities on the surface of the sea, then put themometers in them on black asphalt.

  4. suyts says:

    Well, you could count on Mosh for that.

  5. Eric Webb says:

    On related topic, Masters has gone nuts as usual, and claims that , “Oil-industry funded BEST study finds GW real and manmade.” Wow, he obviously hasn’t seen Anthony’s recent press release.

  6. Mariana Torres says:

    BTW Mosher is not a scientist is he? Hes really good at criminology ie GLEICK affair

  7. Scott says:

    I don’t think it’s going to matter for the next few years, as it won’t be official and out (assuming it can even get through the biased peer review) in time for AR5, so it will be ignored.


    • Streetcred says:

      I read that the IPCC is apparently going to use Muller’s new paper as grey literature … that will not give them any wriggle room not to use Watts et al (2012).

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Even if it was “peer reviewed” it would be out of AR/5 anyway.

      AR/5 will be something that makes Tamino look like a real doubter.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        By the way the only thing that will immediately detract from AR/5 credibility is an examination of all the authors affiliated with Greenpiece etc. It’s a complete farce now.

  8. Mosher’s math sucks.

  9. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  10. Brian G Valentine says:

    Maybe this made a skeptic out of Richard Mueller again.

  11. slimething says:

    The last paper McIntyre did that shook the foundations of the Team (Santer 08), it took 18 months to get it published and at least one or more journal rejections. Considering Santer 08 undoubtedly went through unscathed the first time and was a horrible (stopped data in 1999) example of scientific research, does anyone really think AW will get his published in a reasonable period?

    OTOH, with all the publicity of how the peer review process has become a lackey for AGW, maybe the journals will be more careful as so many will be watching given the wide open approach AW has done using his weblog as a catalyst.

    The thing about Mosher is sometime after 2009 he turned to the dark side. Sure he was always a lukewarmer, but generally an all around decent guy. Today however he could guest post for Tamino and nobody would know the difference. I’ve lost all respect for him.

    • jimash1 says:

      And angry about it.

    • Maybe one reason Anthony is doing it this way is to put the peer reviewed journals and magazine over a log. Like you said the peer review process is being put more into the public eye. A long delay could end up working against the reputation of the peer reviewed publications. They may have to put it through quicker than other “skeptic” papers have been put through just to deflate some of the criticisms they’ve gotten over long delays.

    • Billy Liar says:

      If you look back at some of his older posts they seem to be from a different person.

  12. Mosh sort of lost me when I read a comment of his over at the Blackboard. June was a warm month according to AMSU data (temps appear to have cooled down considerably since then), and he declared that all this nonsense about ‘global cooling’ could finally be put to rest. Now, whether we are still in a warm cycle or moving into a cool cycle is not something I know the answer to. But I did find it curious that Mosh could look at one month of data and draw such a long bow from it. Wasn’t he being guilty of the sort of thing he was criticising others of doing?

  13. Brian D says:

    Looks like my hunch was right. AW’s interest in Steve’s USHCN code was a good clue. Next is the TOBS adjustment. The general nature of this adjustment is not proper. You can be more specific to times and locations than what Karl has done. Weather patterns in any given year in any given month of the year really make this one difficult to apply as they can be quite variable and could result in big over or under estimates. This adjustment is a quest to equalize to the midnight to midnight daily mean.

  14. Brian D says:

    Excuse me, I meant monthly mean. Just so everyone knows, are daily records are from raw data regardless of reading time. It’s the monthly means they are tampering with.

  15. jabali316 says:

    I don’t think that getting Anthony’s paper published will be an issue. The big questions are where and when. After making the rounds of the Warmist rags, Jennifer Marohasy got the paper that she co-authered on the application of AI to seasonal rainfall forecasting in Queensland published in a Chinese journal. Thanks to Political Correctness in the Western world, that may be the wave of the future.

  16. Brian G Valentine says:

    The real live apoplectic global warmers (the Real McCoy) despise Mosher anyway. They won’t even cite Mosher on this.

  17. Alexej Buergin says:

    Mosher is not on the dark side. One just gets that impression because he has bad manners.

Leave a Reply