OK – I ADMIT IT – I’ve been caught out by a spoof post. Tom Moriarty is actually a skeptic.
========My Original Post (funny in retrospect!)========
I went to look at uClimate an I was unprepared for this filth:
Based on this data it is obvious that it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet.
My immediate thought was that such statements are hate-speech and depending on what else is said could construe an incitement to violence. As such I would have to report the individual to the police (if UK based).
So I went to check what else was in the article it read:
The Climate deniers are taking it on the chin again today as another independent source confirms the climate hockey stick that was first revealed by Michael Mann. It is getting harder and harder for those corporate sponsored capitalist luddites to hide the truth about runaway effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.
What could be clearer than the rapidly rising temperature seen in the blade of the hockey stick on the right side of the graph? Based on this data, it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet. (link)
And what it is that is causing them to commit criminal acts of hatred?
 Climate Insanity’s Hockey Stick |
 Mann’s hockey stick |
And yes, they do look vaguely similar. And yes both are hockey sticls. However, there is small problem with this comparison. Mann’s is from 1000AD whilst Climate Insanity’s is from 1979. Mann’s reconstruction stops around 2000, Climate Insanity’s stops in 2014. So what happens when we compare the years that they have in common?
 Mann’s Hockey Stick from 1975-2000 |
 Mann’s hockey stick from 1975-2000 |
Climate Insanity’s hockey stick disappears, leaving a graph that if anything “disproves” Mann’s hockeystick**.
Indeed, all the “uptick” is post Climategate so clearly post Mann’s hockeystick.
This just shows the mindset, attitude and critical faculty we skeptics are up against.
- Zealots who jump on any evidence which they imagine supports their case
- Zealots who cannot understand something as simple as the need to compare data from the same period
- Zealots who as soon as they imagine in their deluded minds that they have “proven” us wrong, call for us to be executed.
They need psychiatric help.
Addendum
Checking the “about” section I find this statement (which hardly seems credible):
Tom Moriarty is a Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties, from basic silicon to the highest efficiency multi-junction devices and newly emerging organic technologies.
He has a masters degree in Physics and previous experience in two other national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Additionally, he worked for several years in the Gates Rubber Company Advanced Materials Analysis Lab in Denver, Colorado.
**I’m not claiming this graph proves anything except that this zealot is a rather nasty person who is unable to understand even a very simple graph.
Oops. That is a rather silly sarcastic spoof blog by a sceptic. The graph is antarctic ice.
Maybe delete this post?
I know where I went wrong.
First I found the language shocking (and all too realistic).
Second, the text uClimate picked up was not at the beginning of the article as I would expect appearing to suggest the text had been removed – which suggested to me it was a warmist who had thought better.
Third, I’ve been looking at the Central England Temperature record and the new graph looks very similar if you remove the 1690-1740 massive warming. As such I assumed it was a variant of that graph starting in the late 1700s. Seeing the 7s in dates of the 197- I mistook them for years in the range 179-
By the time I had the graph at a scale I could view the dates – I just assumed it was temperature I was looking at and nothing in the article explicitly said what it was.
There have been a few genuinely nasty posts crop up on uclimate and on investigation the authors were prepared to be even nastier directly. I was spoofed by this link but instantly recognised the ice graph so I knew it was a joke. I have been tricked by a very elaborate sceptic spoof site but I’m not sure that the joke works while there is such polarity between sides. It’s its own spoof.
I wrote a blog here
http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/satire-spoofs-and-poes-law/
about how climate spoofs are often not spotted, because the stuff they are satirising is so ridiculous. Lots of people thought that the ‘Live from Golgafrincham’ and ‘Climate Nuremberg’ blogs were genuine. Apparently there is a term for this, it’s called Poe’s law.
Pingback: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise | ScottishSceptic
Pingback: Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise | ScottishSceptic
It’s always good to be found wanting, have to admit mistakes and be brought down a peg or two.
That’s a lesson I learnt going from physics to engineering.
Physics teaches us to be arrogant that “we are able to solve any problem”.
Engineering teaches us that we cannot.
Yes! Far too realistic!
Good article.
From my first draft to my last was 38minutes.
Better to be a deluded skeptic for 38 minutes, than a deluded warmist for 38 years!
I should have spotted ‘Live from Golgafrincham’ was fake, the host was too polite/friendly.
The highly unpleasant Fascist thug Prof Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz (in Austria, where else?) was entirely serious when he proposed the death penalty for climate sceptics (he referred to them as “deniers”, naturally).
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/