5 ms·

Linking to Tony Heller in 2021 is just embarrassing. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments https://tamino.wordpres

Linking to Tony Heller in 2021 is just embarrassing. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-... https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/tony_heller_and_data_adjustments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/to... You and I agree on one thing: there certainly is no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans, and hustlers out there. Some days I feel social media was a mistake.

olivermarks 5y ago
I'm only interested in data, not personalities, whether Tony Heller or Greta Thunberg/Severn Suzuki.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  Well, good! Heller cherry-picks inappropriately processed data and thrives on fanning the flames of anti-science contrarianism. His output intentionally misrepresents data to maximize emotional response. Since you value data, I can only assume you'll review his methods more closely and conclude he's full of shit.
  - olivermarks 5y ago
    Phrases like 'anti-science contrarianism', 'global warming denier' etc are primarily emotion driven. Add in a bit of profanity and you have a fairly typical reactive climate alarmist. What 'inappropriately processed data' were you referring to in particular?
    - EForEndeavour 5y ago
      Here you go: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-...
      - olivermarks 5y ago
        you already posted that link. 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'...
        EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Yes. Did you get a chance to read it? It concisely and specifically presents the dishonesty of Steve Goddard, AKA Tony Heller, and why he is precisely one of the "grifters, charlatans, and hustlers" you claim to be so wary of. Though I try to take charitable view on this site, I sense from your repeated avoidance of substantive discourse that you never intended to engage in that in the first place. Happy to be proven wrong, though!
        olivermarks 5y ago
        Of course I read it! Interesting opinions but nothing very substantial, more character assassination than 'substantive discourse'. Do you have any ideas of your own on this other than other people's posted light weight rebuttals? you seem to be unsure about contexts and timeframes...

olivermarks 5y ago

I'm only interested in data, not personalities, whether Tony Heller or Greta Thunberg/Severn Suzuki.

EForEndeavour 5y ago
Well, good! Heller cherry-picks inappropriately processed data and thrives on fanning the flames of anti-science contrarianism. His output intentionally misrepresents data to maximize emotional response. Since you value data, I can only assume you'll review his methods more closely and conclude he's full of shit.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  Phrases like 'anti-science contrarianism', 'global warming denier' etc are primarily emotion driven. Add in a bit of profanity and you have a fairly typical reactive climate alarmist. What 'inappropriately processed data' were you referring to in particular?
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    Here you go: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-...
    - olivermarks 5y ago
      you already posted that link. 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'...
      - EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Yes. Did you get a chance to read it? It concisely and specifically presents the dishonesty of Steve Goddard, AKA Tony Heller, and why he is precisely one of the "grifters, charlatans, and hustlers" you claim to be so wary of. Though I try to take charitable view on this site, I sense from your repeated avoidance of substantive discourse that you never intended to engage in that in the first place. Happy to be proven wrong, though!
        olivermarks 5y ago
        Of course I read it! Interesting opinions but nothing very substantial, more character assassination than 'substantive discourse'. Do you have any ideas of your own on this other than other people's posted light weight rebuttals? you seem to be unsure about contexts and timeframes...