The so called un-deniable correlation exists only if you still insist using the hockey stick and the numerous alarmist.orgs that use graphs
which even the IPCC had to toss into the trash bin after the "climate gate" e-mail scandal revealed the methods how the data for these graphs was fabricated.
After that the authors had to honor information requests and full disclosure of all data to skeptics.
This in turn caused numerous corrections not just of future projections and also affected 1980 to present day data but not the rhetoric and spin doctoring how to interpret this "corrected" data.
In the final analysis it comes down to 3 choices
[1] trust the same "consensus" that agreed to fabricate the hockey stick.
[2] continue to let the numerous alarmist spin doctors to "interpret" the corrections for you in a manner that substantiates the claim
that CO2 is the cause and climbing temperature is the effect
[3] choose neither of the above and use your own judgment.
The outcome of [3] depends entirely of what you want to see and that in turn would tell a psychiatrist a lot about you, because
it`s a lot like taking a Rorschach inkblot test.
What you say you`ve seen depends on how good or bad you ability is to observe is and how rational or irrational your interpretation is
And here is the IPCC inkblot test:
We already know from all the prior posts which inkblot choices the obviously psychotic Nostradamus "science" occult members chose.
All they can see is the 1975 to 2000 inkblot in which the spin doctors connected the dots for them on the left side, the stair case to a Nostradamus dooms day.
All others that opted for choice [3] are looking at the whole picture on the right side and have the abilty to superimpose 2 images to see for themselves
if there is a Nostradamus doomsday pattern in that IPCC Roscharsch inkblot.
It turns out that this CO2 and rising temperature doomsady "scientific" relationship is no better than a toss of the coin, actually worse than that, because
the only times that temperature climbed with CO2 was for 5 years from 1975 to 1980, one year from 1988 to 1989 and then for 4 years from 1994 to 1998.
That "undeniable correlation" exists only for 10 out of a total of 35 years.
The other 25 years exhibit just the opposite of this "undeniable correlation" , a downward temperature divergence while CO2 was rising.
1 of these temperature drops, the 3 year drop from 1991 to 1994 is even steeper than the much tauted "alarming rise" from 1975 to 1980,
which was the only time when CO2 and T were in lock-step.
All in all we got a "correlation" for 10 out of 35 years and then no correlation whatsoever, neigh the exact opposite for 25 years which the IPCC spin doctors are trying
to "adjust" with the ENSO effect and summing this whole nonsense "scientific" data interpretation up, stretching all known bounds of rhetoric that the
overall rise was 0.8 degrees C from 1975 to 2010 with an "average decadal increase of +0.07 degrees" which also happens to be the margin of error !.
All it takes is another event, like the 1991 to 1994 temperature drop and we are where we were in 1975.
Since "climate science" is not a science there is no way to make an accurate prediction other than evaluating the chances for a +T or a -T event.
Looking at the IPCC "inkblot" and that there are only 10 out of 35 chances that it might be going up instead of down the whole dilemma boils down to
random chance which would suggest that down is the future trend, as it already has been for the last 15 years with 10 more years going down to follow, as was the case with the entire 35 year data set so far, 25 down against 10 up.
which even the IPCC had to toss into the trash bin after the "climate gate" e-mail scandal revealed the methods how the data for these graphs was fabricated.
After that the authors had to honor information requests and full disclosure of all data to skeptics.
This in turn caused numerous corrections not just of future projections and also affected 1980 to present day data but not the rhetoric and spin doctoring how to interpret this "corrected" data.
In the final analysis it comes down to 3 choices
[1] trust the same "consensus" that agreed to fabricate the hockey stick.
[2] continue to let the numerous alarmist spin doctors to "interpret" the corrections for you in a manner that substantiates the claim
that CO2 is the cause and climbing temperature is the effect
[3] choose neither of the above and use your own judgment.
The outcome of [3] depends entirely of what you want to see and that in turn would tell a psychiatrist a lot about you, because
it`s a lot like taking a Rorschach inkblot test.
What you say you`ve seen depends on how good or bad you ability is to observe is and how rational or irrational your interpretation is
And here is the IPCC inkblot test:
We already know from all the prior posts which inkblot choices the obviously psychotic Nostradamus "science" occult members chose.
All they can see is the 1975 to 2000 inkblot in which the spin doctors connected the dots for them on the left side, the stair case to a Nostradamus dooms day.
All others that opted for choice [3] are looking at the whole picture on the right side and have the abilty to superimpose 2 images to see for themselves
if there is a Nostradamus doomsday pattern in that IPCC Roscharsch inkblot.
It turns out that this CO2 and rising temperature doomsady "scientific" relationship is no better than a toss of the coin, actually worse than that, because
the only times that temperature climbed with CO2 was for 5 years from 1975 to 1980, one year from 1988 to 1989 and then for 4 years from 1994 to 1998.
That "undeniable correlation" exists only for 10 out of a total of 35 years.
The other 25 years exhibit just the opposite of this "undeniable correlation" , a downward temperature divergence while CO2 was rising.
1 of these temperature drops, the 3 year drop from 1991 to 1994 is even steeper than the much tauted "alarming rise" from 1975 to 1980,
which was the only time when CO2 and T were in lock-step.
All in all we got a "correlation" for 10 out of 35 years and then no correlation whatsoever, neigh the exact opposite for 25 years which the IPCC spin doctors are trying
to "adjust" with the ENSO effect and summing this whole nonsense "scientific" data interpretation up, stretching all known bounds of rhetoric that the
overall rise was 0.8 degrees C from 1975 to 2010 with an "average decadal increase of +0.07 degrees" which also happens to be the margin of error !.
All it takes is another event, like the 1991 to 1994 temperature drop and we are where we were in 1975.
Since "climate science" is not a science there is no way to make an accurate prediction other than evaluating the chances for a +T or a -T event.
Looking at the IPCC "inkblot" and that there are only 10 out of 35 chances that it might be going up instead of down the whole dilemma boils down to
random chance which would suggest that down is the future trend, as it already has been for the last 15 years with 10 more years going down to follow, as was the case with the entire 35 year data set so far, 25 down against 10 up.
Last edited:
