# Agree to Disagree

##### Debate in a non-hostile environment

# Is Tamino a moron?

### .

Many people who read this article, will expect it to be some sort of a cheap joke, at Tamino’s expense. But that is not what it is, at all.

I believe that Tamino is proud of his statistical expertise. I have been told by a number of Tamino’s followers, that Tamino is an expert, with over 40 years of statistical experience. So Tamino’s opinion carries a lot of weight, at least among his followers.

So when Tamino “proved” that my graph (which I call a global warming contour map), was wrong, many people believed him. In the last week, I have been told by 3 people, that Tamino proved that my graph was wrong. And they refused to even look at my graph, because they couldn’t trust anything that my graph showed.

You can imagine, that I am not very happy about this situation. I have spent over 2 years developing my graph, gradually improving it, and thoroughly testing it. I consider it to be a fairly unique, accurate, and reliable graph. You might think that my claims are just bragging, by a conceited loser. But let me tell you about my expertise.

I have over 35 years of experience in the computer industry. I have been a computer programmer, a computer analyst, a systems programmer (like a computer programmer, but twice as geeky), and for the last 10 years, I have been a tester (or test analyst). That’s right, for the last 10 years, my job has been to test computer programs, and computer systems, to find any bugs or faults.

So you can imagine how I felt, when Tamino proclaimed that my graph was wrong, and that it showed slowdowns, when there were no slowdowns in the temperature series.

Over the past 2 years, I have made global warming contour maps, from just about every temperature series that I could find. Land and ocean temperature series, like GISTEMP and NOAA, satellite temperature series, like UAH and RSS, land only temperature series, like NOAA’s ClimDiv, weather balloon temperature series, like RATPAC, and even the world’s longest continuous temperature series, Central England Temperature (CET). I estimate that I have made over 200 global warming contour maps, in the last 2 years.

I have never seen any evidence that my graph was wrong.

Tamino doesn’t like slowdowns. He has tested a number of temperature series, and he claims that there is no statistical evidence to support the idea of a slowdown. He has used techniques like “change point analysis”, and he claims that there is no evidence to suggest that the warming rate has changed, since about 1970. So he regards my claims of a slowdown, to be completely false.

But here was my graph, showing a slowdown. What was Tamino to do? My graph was threatening Tamino’s credibility.

Tamino decided to “prove” that my graph was wrong. How did he do this, because he didn’t have access to MY computer program?

Tamino wrote his own version of MY computer program. In other words, he “simulated” MY computer program. To make the discussion easier to follow, I will call MY computer program, Sheldon-prog, and Tamino’s version of MY computer program, Tamino-prog.

Next, Tamino generated a temperature series made from a straight line with the same slope as the NASA data, plus random noise with the same standard deviation as the residuals of the NASA data departures from a straight line. I will call this temperature series, Tamino-series.

When I went to school, using random numbers meant that you were not completely sure what you were going to get. But Tamino claimed that Tamino-series “COULD NOT CONTAIN A SLOWDOWN”. Tamino appears to be saying, that random numbers cannot create a slowdown. Now, Tamino is a statistical expert, and if he claims to be able to accurately predict what random numbers will produce, who am I to question him?

Tamino appears to be unable to tell the difference between

1) “simulating” a temperature series, which could contain a slowdown, and

2) deliberately building a temperature series, which by design, doesn’t have a slowdown.

Tamino seems to think that he did 2), but I believe that he did 1).

Anyway, Tamino used Tamino-prog and Tamino-series, to produce a graph. He said that the graph showed a slowdown. But he claimed that Tamino-series couldn’t include a slowdown. Therefore Tamino-prog was wrong.

Now we have a very important step in Tamino’s logic. Because Tamino-prog was wrong, Tamino claimed that this proved that Sheldon-prog was wrong.

Did you see Tamino shuffle the cups, there? He shifted the blame from Tamino-prog, to Sheldon-prog (a computer program that Tamino has NEVER seen). Tamino has seen the “output” of Sheldon-prog, in the form of graphs. But Tamino has never seen the “code” of Sheldon-prog. Tamino has just “guessed” how Sheldon-prog works.

That is about it. Tamino generated a temperature series, and simulated MY computer program. Because Tamino felt that HIS computer program produced the wrong result, that “proved” that MY computer program was wrong.

Hopefully, you can now see why I am unhappy. Tamino set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner, because he wanted to make slowdowns “disappear”.

He wouldn’t let me testify at the trial (I tried, but he banned me). And he wouldn’t let me see the evidence against me (Tamino-prog and Tamino-series).

A fair test, would have been to use Sheldon-prog and Tamino-series, and see what the graph looked like. But Tamino never asked me to do that. I would have been happy to do this test, because I have complete confidence in my graph, and I have been trying to show people that my graph is correct, for a long time.

If Tamino has any honesty, or integrity, then he will publish an article on his website, retracting his claims that my graph is wrong.

Ok, now the bit that you have been waiting for. Can I prove that Tamino is a moron. Yes, it is quite easy.

First, I wrote a computer program to “simulate” Tamino.

Then I developed a “moron” test, which I gave to the Tamino simulation.

I checked the results, and it proved that the Tamino simulation was a moron.

I therefore concluded, that the real Tamino was a moron.