Beating Meat and Responding to Idiocy

Previously, I posted a point by point take down of an attack video posted at a libtards blog. Once the libtard in question finally got over his childishness, he did what he should have in the first place, which is to respond to my post. Now that we have the response, let's pick it apart.

"One of Paul Mitchell’s fellow wingnuts, the laughably misnamed Classicaliberal..."

How many people out there haven't heard of Wikipedia? Hands? Only you meatard? Well, you see, its this site that's just like a traditional encyclopedia, only it's all online. It helps ignorant people, such as yourself, learn new things. Since you seem to be allergic to using it, I'll provide for you a definition of classical liberalism:

"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4], as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Frédéric Bastiat, Montesquieu and others."

Those would be considered conservative principles now days, thus the only irony here is that meatfool is to dumb to figure it out on his own.

At the risk of beating an already dead horse...
"The claim that the video wasn’t taken down from Youtube is a lie. The removal was documented. Youtube later restored the video, but this does not change the fact that “Classicaliberal” lied about the fact that the video was, in fact, removed."

An attempt, and success are two very different things. As everyone who has seen the video is keenly aware, the video is still posted on youtube, and therefore it has not been removed. From the mouth of the jackass himself:

"he attempted to have a video that exposed his intellectual dishonesty removed from Youtube. He failed."

Regardless of the fact that it may have been down for 10 minutes, or 10 years, the video is back online, and viewable by anyone with an internet connection. Did I know that the video had been taken down and reposted? No. Does it matter in the overall scheme of things? No. The crucks of the post are ill-effected by whether or not the video was taken offline for a period.

Further beating an already dead horse...
"Now, when I pointed out on Twitter that “Classicaliberal” had lied, he quickly changed the post; he now tries hard to gloss over his lie. Unfortunately for “Classicaliberal”, I’m used to dealing with his ilk. I’d already mirrored the post, thus preserving his lie for posterity."

Yes, you caught me. I was working so underhandedly to erase all of the details surrounding the matter that I posted it at the top of my blog detailing everything... Way to go. And I almost got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling meatpackers.

"As for his “point by point take down” of the video, “Classical Liberal” carefully avoids addressing the full meaning of the central argument of the video"

Its funny, being accused of avoiding the topic of the video, because for a fact, the video avoids the topic of Anthony Watt's investigation and subsequent report. Luckily for me, meatstain took the bait.

The conclusion of 'Is the US Surface Temperature Reliable' was that after reviewing more than 860 of the 1,221 temperature stations, 9 out of 10 of these stations 'fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.' And further that the study observed 'changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.'

You see, the second finding is truly the key because it is not addressed in the video at all. The video grabs the first claim, that 9 out of 10 stations 'fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source' and then does a comparison of the data from so called bad stations with so called good stations. The problem with this is, if the system is outdated and using technology which causes them to report false warming trends AND large gaps of data were missing, then all of the data must be thrown out because none of it can be considered useful. However, the video glosses over the second finding and attempts to make Anthony Watts look like a loon cause he reports the weather for a station which plays Michael Savage's radio program. Intellectual honesty on full display.

In the video, it's reported that NOAA adjusts for environmental anomalies like concrete or exhaust ventilation which might skew the data. This is like Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis competing in a 100 meter dash, with Bolt wearing brand new running shoes and Carl Lewis wearing a 30 year old pair with no laces. At the end of the race, Bolt has won by a 3 second interval, but the officials adjust for footwear anomalies and give Lewis 3.5 seconds back.

"“Classicaliberal” objects that the graph doesn’t show several hundred years of data — which is a red herring. He is deliberately ignoring the fact that Watts’ accusation was that the temperature data is inaccurate because of nonoptimal siting of many climate stations."

Wrong on so many levels... Watts' accusation, as detailed above, is that the data is unreliable both due to placement of the stations and outdated technology and missing data blocks. The video then uses data from this system to show a warming trend over the last 30 or so years. Again, you have to throw out the data due to the inconsistency under which it was recorded. But, secondly, if you are going to take temperature data to display a warming trend, you must take at least one full cycle, which at a minimum is 60 years. Allow me to illustrate:

This is an image of a sound wave. You can plainly see by looking at this image that sound waves continue to ascend! There is no peak, this wave will continue to ascend! The sound waves must be stopped!

Of course, no one truly believes this, because we've all seen the next image:

You see, the at the end of the video, the assertion is made that AGW is real, that we are responsible, and we have to stop. In order to make a truly informed decision on the matter, you must have as much data as possible. AGW advocates cite recent warming activity as proof positive that AGW is real and is occurring now. Of course, what they are seeing is this:

When you take a step back and look at more evidence the picture becomes clearer and you can see that it's all apart of a naturally recurring cycle and that the current warming trend as subsided and we're beginning the next cycle of cooling. It is, in fact, a part of the 60 year cycle mentioned before.

Once again, for effect:
Bottom line, Meathead is an anti-intellectual fool for posting such tripe on his blog and standing behind it as reasoned evidence. When called on this, he dissolves into the 3rd grader on the playground and calls everyone within earshot a liar. Well played sir, well played.