Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo

Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo“. Anthony Watts presents us with chilling evidence of scientific fraud: Professor Ray Bradley’s faculty website photo! Got him! And thus the grand conspiracy unravels.

Dr. Ray Bradley's Faculty photo, showing 'evidence of deception'.

So…

Is a staff photo scientific evidence? No.

Does Anthony realise that this informal photo doesn’t even show the entire chart? That, cunningly, Dr. Bradley’s body is concealing some of the details? No. (That’s the clue that Anthony missed.)

1200 words about nothing at all, with even more in the comments praising Anthony’s revelation… Just another day at WUWT.

By the way, why is Dr. Bradley earning denialist attention? He’s the climate scientist that Dr. Wegman plagiarized and misrepresented in his 2006 Report and had the nerve to complain about it. Anthony and crew are looking for ways to make him uncomfortable.

4 thoughts on “Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo

  1. Alas my comment there is still in moderation:

    “And the fact that this photo seems to be staged so that the chart is the most prominent portion of the photo, as Dr. Bradley leans to the left to expose it clearly and the full title. – Anthony”

    Leaning-slightly-to-the-left-no-my-left-his-right-gate?

    • Well, I mean after moving the goal posts several times through the thread (once when pointed out that CO2 is well mixed and it doesn’t matter where the measurements are taken, and then again when shown that the caption on the photograph explains the “splice”), Watts settles on:

      “I’ll also point out, that there’s no line color difference (to delineate data sets) presented in the graph for the instrumental portion, either in the example you cite or in the Bradley photo. At least the MBH 98 and 2003 examples delineate the datasets by color. This leads the uninitiated to think that the Vostok Paleo ice core record in fact shows this value, when it doesn’t”

      So my vote is Did-Not-Show-Color-Difference-On-Graph-As-Good-As-Mann-Gate!

  2. He can’t even admit that CO2 at Mauna Loa is 390ppm:

    “since the current value in the atmosphere from Mauna Loa is said to be around 390ppm currently.”

    Has to claim it is just “said”.

    The article is completely fucking ridiculous. The problem is not the graph behind Bradley, it’s the raving morons in the WUWT comments.

  3. Apart from being much ado about nothing, Watts also demonstrates (again) that he hasn’t the faintest clue about what’s going on. His ‘analogy’ at the end, comparing this graph with splicing the stock data from two different companies together boggles the mind. His reply to a commenter who points out that the only issue is that the heading should read “Vostok Ice Core + observations” instead of just “Vostok Ice Core”, shows that he doesn’t even know he’s digging himself a hole:

    REPLY: So you’re saying then it’s OK if a company publishes spliced data in a stock report but doesn’t tell anyone? -A

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s