A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “Extreme Weather” Update

Posted on by

A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “Extreme Weather” Update (2012-11-11). A post “By WUWT regular Just The Facts”. I’m going to assume that JTF is merely another sock-puppet of Anthony’s censors the way that “Smokey”, WUWT’s resident denialist troll that always gets a free pass, is really David B. Stealey (“dbs”).

“Big Picture” is code for step waaaay back, take off your glasses, slap on the blinkers and close your good eye.

Here’s JTF’s nothing-to-see-here preface:

All of these claims and “extreme weather” rhetoric seems to be predicated on the assumption that “Earth’s Temperature” has increased recently, thus causing “extreme weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. However, does the observational data support this assumption? Let’s take a look…

Just go read Open Mind’s post Extreme Denial to get a somewhat dissenting opinion on JTF’s enthusiastic ignorance:

Under the guise of a “big picture” look, WUWT reader “just the facts” purports to show that climate data don’t support the claim of an increase in extreme weather. But he (she?) doesn’t show evidence about extreme anything, just a bunch of graphs, which he got from other sources, followed by the wrong conclusions. Show a graph of, say, global average temperature, then say “doesn’t look like there’s been much global warming” (even though there has been), and conclude “no increase in extreme weather here.” And of course “he” goes “out of his way” to use “scare quotes” at “every opportunity.”

2 thoughts on “A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “Extreme Weather” Update”

  1. The sock-puppetry at WUWT is verboten to talk about. Anthony wants to maintain the illusion that WUWT does not censor and will not tolerate any contradiction of Stealey’s sock puppet (renamed David Boehm rather than Smokey now) who has the nerve to publish lies about how WUWT doesn’t censor at the same time as he is presumably involved in censoring my posts! Look at the exchange starting here.

    Below is the reply I made that got me banned for several days:

    D Boehm says:

    And joelshore should notify his pals at the thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs that even unscientific ‘troll’ comments are posted here.

    No doubt that many unscientific comments are posted here. As for scientific comments that disagree with the prevailing opinion on this website, my record of being able to post such comments, especially recently, is rather mixed.

    Alarmist blogs censor uncomfortable comments by scientific skeptics, because skeptics demolish the alarmist narrative.

    I see plenty of comments by skeptics at RealClimate. and the like. What likely would not be tolerated there are comments like yours in which you repeatedly throw up graphs that others have already discredited and you have been completely unable to defend. That is because they like to actually achieve some sort of non-zero signal-to-noise ratio in their comment forums.

    Also, those blogs to my knowledge do not employ unnamed moderators who also post lots of their own comments under pseudonyms, which creates a significant hidden conflict-of-interest. Can the same be said of this blog and regarding the very same commenter who I am addressing?

    And, is there any chance that this comment of mine will see the light of day?

    [Thats one if the purposes of this website. I admire your persistence there. – Ben]

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to joeldshore Cancel reply