What do warmers such as Hanson/Giss do, well, they compare data from a highly UHI contaminated urban city weather station with CLEAN data from a neighbouring RURAL station. They then Use some secret algorithm put all the data through a computer which then gives them the result in degrees C. The odd thing is that the result always shows a steep rising temperature trend when the neighbouring RURAL CLEAN data shows only a flat or a slightly rising trend.

Would it not have been more logical to have discarded the contaminated data from the Urban stations and used only the clean data from the Rural sites. I believe the answer to this is that this method would not allow the use of this secret algorithm which makes it difficult to detect how much the data is being manipulated.

Bad data + good data = very good data, because it shows rising temperatures this is called Hansonisation.

Good data from rural weather stations = NO link between CO2 and temperature rise and we don`t want that do we. .

Please explain.

are you really a 13 year old??

“You’re a fucking moron. An absolute fucking moron. Follow the methodology and make the graph. What the fuck else do you expect people to tell you? You want someone to wipe your arse when you’ve had a shit? Do you dribble when you eat? Fucking pathetic.”

Look, in March when the GISS avg tem for the month went up about .5c and everyone else went up .2c or more LESS, it can’t be covered by hand waving statistics and cursing.

GISS is not only warmer now, but, it is getting cooler in the past as they “adjust” their problem stations giving a stronger WARMING TREND!!!

Oh yeah, that also adjusts their reference period.

You lose. Now go suck your thumb.

PS: Why would anyone want to waste their time proving something pointless???

but you never bothered to check its numbers and can’t come up with them. if i had pointed to that graph, you would certainly have asked me for the data.

i guess your standard of evidence is not terribly high…

given your repeated insistence throughout myriad postings on this site that others produce the numbers behind anything they cite, this seems a significant lapse for you to expect us to tolerate.

you are both a hypocrite and a charlatan, and worse, you are an uncouth boor that acts like a petulant child.

i had hoped that by engaging in a data centric conversation with you, i could elicit some manner of civilized discourse and delve into the science of the subject matter.

however, i see now that you are utterly incapable of such.

i wash my hands of you.

how do i compare the slope of the line i generate with his?

you don’t even make the rudiments of sense. go read your own comments above about eyeballing not being a good substitute for measurement. isn’t that exactly what you are proposing i do?

you want me to generate data then eyeball the difference to what you presented?

how do you propose i compare my data to tamino’s?

and calling others f’ing idiots when you seem unable to grasp a basic issue like needing two sets of numbers to make an accurate comparison seems like the act of either a fool or someone dangerously emotionally unbalanced. seriously, what is it with you and all this pent up anger? all i am asking for is the data you cite so i can compare it to data i derive. why is this such an explosive issue for you? are you just trying to get out of providing that which you require of others (and suggest to me) by flinging vitriol?

you have no actual data apart from a presumed slope from a difficult to read line. you yourself say that eyeballing such a line is insufficient. why don’t you just admit that you can’t back up this data?

so how can i check them?

you seem to think that i don’t understand where the basic data is or how to set it to a common reference period. i do. there’s nothing hard about it. i have been saying this all along. how can i get this through to you?

but how can i compare those results to those you cited until you show me what they are?

are you just being deliberately difficult here to try to get off the hook for having linked to a bunch of unsubstantiated data?

there is really no way to make this any more clear.

i want to check the tamino work you cited. to do that, i need it’s results.

but you are unable/unwilling to provide them, implying that you have no idea if they are accurate either despite your constant demands that others provide back up data and peer review etc.

you fail to adhere to your own standards. this makes it difficult to take you seriously.