## Exposing the faithful’s double standard

On the blog where they are attacking my claim that summers are getting cooler, some there are complaining that my TMax profiles, which shows a drop since 1900’s, is nothing of the sort. Without “proper” statistical analysis to prove there is a drop there is no way I can make such a claim. So I decided to do a test on these guys and presented this graph:

I presented this as a nice example of a dropping temperature profile. Seems very clear what is happening here, the trend is down. But, no, not to these people. Without a vigorous statistical test there is no way one can conclude this is dropping.

Ok…

At the beginning of that thread at that site, when I initially showed my temp profiles, these people had no problem in accepting that winter TMin was increasing. That, they said, was well within AGW theory. So for these people this graph of increasing TMin is quite acceptable:

Definite trend as far as they are concerned. But look closely at the two graphs. They are the same! All I did in the top graph was to plot the lowest TMin and flip the image so the numbers were positive. Thus the top graph, which they assumed was another one of my TMax graphs, was in fact a TMin graph flipped.

So this test has exposed some interesting conflicts for these people.

If they claim that TMax is not dropping but has to be “properly” stat tested, then they also MUST apply this to TMin, which they fully accept that AGW would produce.

This shows so clearly their bias against TMax dropping. They will go to any lengths to discredit it. So a dropping TMax must be a real threat to the theory or they would not be so blatantly contradictory and require a double standard. Increasing TMin is OK, no stat test needed because it fits the theory, but oh no, we must apply rigorous stats to prove TMax is dropping.

So this test puts AGW into a real vice. They have two options:

1) TMax dropping is only due to “statistical noise” but not TMin it’s increase is caused by AGW.

2) All both TMax and TMin profiles are the result of random variations of cycles within cycles producing the trends.

If they go with #2 then the temperature changes have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and AGW is dead.

If they go with #1 and ONLY TMax’s profile is by random noise, but not TMin, then they have a serious conflict and double standard. I have shown that give them a TMin graph mirrored to LOOK like a TMax drop, they will demand a stats test be done. But not when it really shows that TMin is increasing.

Hence if a stats test proves that TMax is indeed dropping and dropping due to natural variation of cycles within cycles, then so too must TMins’ increase be from normal variation of random cycles within random cycles. Hence #1 gets rejected and #2 becomes the only option left. CO2 has no effect on temperatures.

I thank the guys at illconcidered for playing the game and being test subjects.