Those in the know will have been following Mr Anthony Watts personal crusade against the NOAA/NCDC, the GHCN and, generally, the entire US temperature data gathering system. He's set up a website http://www.surfacestations.org that monitors the US temperature measuring sites, and put together an army of volunteers to examine and report back on each and every one. Here's a report
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Well, NOAA/NCDC has replied. This publication in Geophysical Research Letters
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
looks at the temperature data from the sites listed in the surfacestations.org report as "bad" sites, and compares the data to the "good" sites. John Cook explains
The trends from poorly sited weather stations are compared to well-sited stations. The results indicate that yes, there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites. However, the bias is not what you expect.
---
Weather stations are split into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). Each day, the minimum and maximum temperature are recorded. All temperature data goes through a process of homogenisation, removing non-climatic influences such as relocation of the weather station or change in the Time of Observation. In this analysis, both the raw, unadjusted data and homogenised, adjusted data are compared. Figure 1 shows the comparison of unadjusted temperature from the good and bad sites. The top figure (c) is the maximum temperature, the bottom figure (d) is the minimum temperature. The black line represents well sited weather stations with the red line representing poorly sited stations.
---
Poor sites show a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites are slightly warmer. The net effect is a cool bias in poorly sited stations. Considering all the air-conditioners, BBQs, car parks and tarmacs, this result is somewhat a surprise.

I love the understated irony.
Does this latest analysis mean all the work at surfacestations.org has been a waste of time? On the contrary, the laborious task of rating each individual weather station enabled Menne 2010 to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. The role of surfacestations.org is recognised in the paper's acknowledgements in which they "wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations." A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.
Incidentally, the cause for the cooling bias?
The cause of this cooling bias appears to have been a change in instruments. In the late 1980s, many sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS, otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). This had two effects. Firstly, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums compared to their CRS counterparts. So the switch from CRS to MMTS sensors caused a cooling bias in certain stations.Secondly, the MMTS sensors were attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Limited by cable length, the MMTS weather stations were often located closer to buildings and other artificial sources of heat. This meant most of the stations with the newer MMTS sensors also happened to fall under poorly sited categories. The net result is that poor stations show an overall cooler trend compared with good stations. However, when the change from CRS to MMTS is taken into account in data adjustments, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites.
Update 1: Discussion on this issue at dotearth.
Update 2: It always seems curious to me - the degree of distrust that Americans have for their scientists. The NCDC/NOAA has developed this highly respected dataset from a series of observational stations, called the US Climate Reference Network.
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. (more...) Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis.
The interesting detail in Menne's paper is that the USCRN data for the past 10 years pretty much follows the trend supplied by the older stations.

Oh no. The IPCC BSes us on glaciers melting. Again.
(#205367)UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
"Why did they do this?" Gee, I wonder . . . Any thoughts, TtWD?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
Heh, good one. Wasn't the Iraq war justification
(#205472)taken from someone's thesis, too?
- reply
parent????
(#205534)What an ascientific answer. Unusual for you. Do you really not see that the IPCC's credibility is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers supposedly were?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentCertainly not. The IPCC document is based on good quality
(#205605)observational and statistical science and is a good compilation of the observational state of the art.
I'm ready to be sceptical about the current concepts of climate change if observational data collected by scientists shows this to be the case.
As of now - there is no observational data to justify scepticism - especially not from the global conspiracists.
The mitigation component is speculation and is described as such.
- reply
parentYou cannot make general statements about thousands of
(#205660)pages of a report that is a mixture of measurements, projections from modeling, and anecdotes.
It turns out that the anecdotal "evidence" is extremely weak in three very important areas: Himalayan glacier melt, Glacier melt in other areas, and projected rain forest devastation due to global warming. These are at the crux of IPCC '07's projections of the effects of the failure to mitigate carbon emissions; without them the argument for mitigation is significantly weakened. You can't just shine on these revelations by referencing temp charts and global conspiracy theories - won't work.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentMy understanding...
(#205694)...is that ocean acidification is 90% of that argument.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentIt's very important, but far from 90% or the argument
(#205696)in fact, imo it's been grossly overlooked because it is much more dramatic to talk about melting glaciers, burning rain forests, drought, hurricanes and so forth rather than the very gradual decimation of reefs and aquatic habitats.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWell, yeah.
(#205712)You have to be as aware as I of the tremendous difficulty of making scientific arguments to the incurious.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentIncidentally, the news about the IPCC's so-called unscientific
(#205614)referrals is also somewhat silly.
The table referred to is
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-1-1.html
where the discussion is about the observed effects of global warming. One of the (several) effects described is problems faced by climbers because of loss of ice climbs. Well, where would you expect to find this except in observations made by climbers, in their magazines? Do you expect the problems faced by climbers to appear in Nature, or Geophysical Letters?
You could, of course, argue that this is much less hard science than the instrumental temperature record. But this hasn't stopped sceptics from criticising the methodology of the instrumental temperature record.
And while WWF reports are not what I would have chosen for a scientific report, the WWF data is derived from better papers.
- reply
parentWWF "data"? I completely disagree.
(#205657)First, the WWF is an advocacy group, not a scientific organization. Would you accept "data" from ExxonMobil disproving the effects of global warming?
Second, what you call data I call anecdotes. And as my link states, where is the basis for a guy who climbed K2 ten years ago to state what the ice was like a hundred years ago?
The IPCC is supposedly a scientific organization that does not rely on anecdotes from advocacy groups - it says as much in the preface to IPCC '07. Even Pachauri admits that the Himalayan glacial melt claims were complete BS - he's just refusing to take responsibility for inclusion of them into the report. You seem to be the only onoe defending this nonsense.
Are you following the Phil Jones/missing Chinese weather station data story yet? More grist for the anti-consensus mill. The "science is in" people who laughed at skeptics are looking more foolish by the day.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI do Himalayan trekking.
(#205743)And the (unlettered) guides know a good deal about ice and snow cover on the mountains every year, where to expect the ice and snow at different seasons of the year and so on. I would expect a technically experienced Western climber - K2 is right up there with the most difficult ice climbs to know ice conditions pretty well - well, at least the state of the art.
There is plenty of data in the IPCC report for sceptics to read. Yes there are some anecdotes too, but, as I said above, there are some impacts which don't get published in scientific papers.
The IPCC is supposed to have created a consensus document from the best available evidence. The scientific data is out there. So is data derived from other, less hard sources. In any case all the statements are referenced, so that you can see which is which.
As for the 2035 claim on the Himalayan melt issue, I posted about it on here many weeks ago, including the original New Scientist link. The point was identified and pointed out by the glaciological community btw, not by "sceptics". Also, it was not complete BS, as you seem to think. What was actually said by Hasnain was that if AGW continued to proceed at the upper estimates of the IPCC predictions then the Eastern Himalayan glaciers would melt by that period. That's a pretty straightforward extrapolation. The AR4 report takes this out of context, does not discuss the issues fully and has been criticised, rightly, for it.
But to regard this criticism as overturning the observational science behind climate change is just silly.
- reply
parentYour last sentence is cut from whole cloth.
(#206066)It does not remotely resemble anything I've said. The fact is that the Himalayan glacial melt prediction in IPCC 4 was BS presented as fact. And that is not the only instance of same, which raises the issue of how many of the dire predictions in IPCC 4 are pipedreams drawn from the worst case scenarios of agenda-driven advocacy groups. Using "data" from advocacy groups like the WWF directly contravenes the IPCC's own statement of principles, as well it should.
The IPCC has taken several blows to its credibility recently as a result of snafus like this. Debate that point if you like; no need to fabricate points that I have never remotely attempted to make, and don't even believe.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentSo you get that response a lot.
(#206189)I kinda think you should adopt an "Atrios" style policy, where when he talks about urban planning and density, he has a disclaimer at the bottom of every post that he isn't saying that your neighborhood is bad for you, just that his is good for him, and it's legal to build yours and illegal to build his and that's weird.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentThe Related Shame
(#205686)is that the WWF actually does do worthwhile science.
- reply
parentMaybe, but the problem with being an advocay group
(#205697)is that your science is always subject to question. For all I know, ExxonMobil, GE and Monsanto do good science, too - they certainly have far more resources than any all of the environmentalist groups combined. But would you take anything they issued at face value?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentMonsanto is the world leader in genetic science.
(#205745)The research coming out of their labs is very well regarded. While making public policy their input is necessary.
EXXON research is essential for geological studies. Thats partly how Steve McIntyre got interested.
- reply
parentOn your first point, I would trust nothing from Monsanto on GMOs
(#206067)any more than I would trust Gore's opinion on cap and trade, and for the same reason: they have much to gain and everything to lose depending on the outcome of the debate. Same with the WWF and GCC.
I don't know why you and Desi are so obviously missing the point here; it's clear I meant ExxonMobil's data on GCC-related issues would not be consideered trustworthy by the consensus gang any more than the WWF's would be by skeptics. Why change the subject?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentBecause the stockholders are different.
(#206196)WWF (and Gore, to a lesser extent) live and die on their credibility. Their members demand that they be represented well, and that requires credibility. The same isn't true for Exxon; their stockholders demand money, and that doesn't demand credibility at all. It demands FUD.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentAbout the tensile qualities of a given plastic?
(#205713)Yes, pretty much.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentI Don't Take Anything I Issue
(#205700)at face value. Skepticism is healthy.
Reputation is valuable, especially for an advocacy group with limited resources.
- reply
parentLag
(#205473)The justification for the 2003 invasion goes back to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988, Saddam acting like a dictator that he was to his people, and Saddam remaining fearful of Iran. i.e. nation building and fear of the 1st Muslim that popped into most westerners heads when they thought of Muslim threats.
It may not have been Blood for Oil, but Iraq would have been out of sight, out of mind if it didn't have oil over there.
I think it's safe to say if it was either a historic moment in barely related to reality paranoia induced fear of others secret plots, or nation building, then the invasion was using Iraq blood and soil to keep "terrorist" from going to America. And I hope and don't think that Blair and Bush43 & Co. were seriously considering using Iraq as a proxy battlefield as a substantial positive reason to go ahead.
Then again, the elements of the US gov't sold weapons to fuel a war between two Islamic countries, to fund "Capitalist-Christian" death squads on non-believers.
Gordon Brown's predecessor is more or less saying nation building was a good enough reason in and of itself to invade.
. . ..
- reply
parentJust for you, T.
(#205396)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentRajendra Pachauri is just in it for the $$$
(#205415)UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri ‘got grants through bogus claims’
(Unfortunately I get a 404 when trying to access the rest of the Times story.)
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentThis work?
(#205691)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece?print=yes&randnum=1265224959548
Edit: Hey, the Guardian gets in on the act. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
Must be the recession's effect on UK manufacturing.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentHeh. Phil Jones will be getting his very own diary shortly.
(#205698)What a surprise that a liberal rag like The Guardian is out front on Climategate. All the heavy lifting on the UEA scandals is being done in the English papers.
Wait, stop press - just checked and found that my backyard weather station was made in the PRC. Now we know where one of the missing 42 went. %^>
PS your first link is a 404.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parenttomsyl, you Marxist, you. -nt-
(#205447)-
- reply
parentObviously you know more about Pachauri than any of us.
(#205536)I have heard he does a great deal of lucrative consulting work for companies that stand to benefit from "green" initiatives, which makes him no different from Inhofe in my book. How about connecting the dots for me?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI am genuinely astonished.
(#205409)The entire purpose of an IPCC as such was to avoid this sort of thing. What in the world were the organizers thinking?
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentActually, I do wonder.
(#205378)What's your theory? Because to me, the decision is inexplicable.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentThe IPCC is a mix of scientists, politicians, journalists,
(#205414)technocrats and who knows what else. (I remember seeing somewhere that less than half of the panel are accredited climate scientists, but can't find that link at the moment.)
So I think the sad fact is that good science got mixed in with bad policy-making, and now it will be hard to separate the two. I say sad because I've read enough of the IPCC's reports to know that they are loaded with solid science that should not be tainted by this kind of nonsense. There is enough going on here that exaggeration is unnecessary.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentSeconded. The completely wrong "glacier melting by 2035" story
(#206205)deconstructed here.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/
- reply
parentOk, I'll keep that frame in mind moving forward. -nt-
(#205417).
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentMeh
(#205061)I hope this doesn't become a trend. I really don't look forward to all the diaries about how the scientists screwed this and that up, and the skeptics screwed this and that up. And yes, there are many of both.
What Desi said. And tomsyl.
(#205076)You can't have too much data and too much scrutiny. Unfortunately, the sceptical side has little in the way of hard data. Seeing as nothing is going to be done about AGW, in all probability, one clings on to the hope that Mr Watts' intuition is right and the scientists observations are wrong. I'm not buying into conspiracy theories, or false equivalence..
- reply
parentThe skeptics didn't screw anything up.
(#205062)Their good amateur work will improve our understanding of the climate going forward. That's the point of science -- you publish you data, so even if your hypothesis is complete lunacy, you can still contribute.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentThe surfacestations issues were identified in Climate Audit
(#205214)as long ago as 2007 (when I read Climate Audit regularly) by poster John V.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/09/12/ushcn-survey-results-based-on-33-of-the-network/#comment-105745
That was good amateur work (which has its place in climatology, astronomy and other observational sciences). Since the work was not followed up either at Climate Audit, or WUWT, my interest in both sites has declined.
- reply
parentHas there in fact been a reduction in sites NOAA takes readings
(#205011)from? That seems to be widely accepted, and if so, what is the reason? Seems to me more data = better findings and conclusions. If some sites are better than others, weighting of the data could surely conpensate. And if newfangled technology suddenly rendered thousands of sites obsolete, then how can we rely on earlier data from those stations to prove the hockey stick or anything else?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
More data = better findings
(#205028)Like the vaccination debate? Teach the controversy!
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentYou're right - these people aren't packing full sea chests.
(#205077)LINK. I know it's Prison Planet, but there are plenty of similar surveys out there. What a bunch of ignorant yahoos, huh?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentThey're not scared it will cause autism.
(#205081)I'm assuming that was an attempt to change the subject or something.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentAren't they part of the "vaccination debate"?
(#205084)I don't know what they are concerned about, b ut they know more than you or I do about the risks and benefits of the vaccine, don't they?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentNo, they aren't what I was referring to.
(#205164)Dude, you don't have to disagree with me just because I'm a DFH. I was fairly transparently referring to the long-discredited belief that vaccines cause autism.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parentWrong - I have to reflexively disagree with you.
(#205274)As Harley says, Full Stop.
See you on the 14th, man.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parent?????
(#205386)Or do I not want to know....
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentI'm going to Honolulu on the 14th
(#205395)to collect on all the bottles of liquor that tomsyl owes me from being on the wrong end of various bets. We'll be hanging out with Desidiosus when I'm there.
I'm working towards the fulfillment of my dream, which is the ability to travel anywhere and drink for free.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentI'm working towards the fulfillment of my dream,
(#205410)which is to eat at Sushi Sasabune despite my food allergies.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
- reply
parenttomsyl, your country's scientists provide the best data
(#205032)you are a smart guy - why do you subscribe to the climate conspiracy view?
From the FAQs on the NCDC site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
Plus there's a bunch of newer techniques, satellite sensing of the tropospheric temperatures and so on, which are adding many more datapoints.
- reply
parentI don't have to disbelieve GCC to believe there's been data
(#205075)manipulation in some quarters. It is not as uncommon as you may think in the science community (e.g. cold fusion, sleep apnea/SIDS, the Acta Crystallographica papers, cloning and so forth), particularly where grants, jobs, and even careers and reputations, are at stake if a particular meme is compromised. Do you truly believe that the fact that a scientist supports GCC automatically means he/she is scrupulously honest?
I know about the satellite data; my question related to, say, pre-Cold War data and that going back to the late 1800s. I appreciate NOAA's general comments about testing for data integrity etc. (though it's impossible without more to guess what they mean) but I'm still not getting why stations that were considered historically reliable have been taken down. Is it because they like the satellite measurements better?
(BTW, I maintain one of those "thousands of volunteer NOAA observer stations" - it's one of these and has wireless telemetry so I was able to mount it far enough from my house that temp readings should be valid, even if wind speed might be affected by foliage.)
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentDoes the Piltdown fakery cast doubt on evolution theory?
(#205096)Btw, to answer your point, it seems temperature measuring sites were biased in the past - from the NOAA link above
To return to data manipulation and fraud, certainly there have been cases, as you point out. But I'm using Piltdown as an analogy for a discipline. Here, you also have an entire discipline, with thousands of independent observers and billions of data points. While there are egregious claims and errors in climatology - such as glaciergate (and I'm willing to consider Mike Mann, too, although I'm more sympathetic to his problems as I can begin to see what he was getting at), its pretty hard to credit a global conspiracy hypothesis.
I'm somewhat surprised that you're not more annoyed with Mr Watts, or Lord Monckton, for example, who have been certainly and demonstrably shown to have both misled the public. Both do the anti-AGW side no favours. Richard Lindzen, for example, has more listenable arguments IMO.
- reply
parentYou are adressing point I did not raise, Manish.
(#205277)Monkton is an interesting individual because of his rather extreme greeness, but my vocal focus here on an idiot anti-GCC rabble-rouser has always been James Imhofe. He iscredibility destroyer for anyone who questions the status quo. Watt I don't know, but his name resonates unplesantly with the former secretary of the interior, who was a complete idiot.
Mann is an ideologue, which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong, just that he is smug. We in this country have a great deal of love for seeing the supposedly great brought down, which imo is why Gore is hiding his sorry fat ass through all of this.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentData manipulation, as in what was the warmest year on record
(#205086)it seems to have been ping ponged about.
I think the other factor is the number of stations, the related mix and urban sprawl. The Front Range of the Rockies is an excellent example. That is, what once was rural is now suburban.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentWarmest Year == Junk Science.
(#205098)Warmest year where, precisely? Greenland? New Zealand? And what does it matter if the whole year is warmer? What does that prove? That the error factor rises with the number of data points? This much we're learning about AGW, Europe will get colder, not warmer as a result. It's the Arctic and Antarctic where AGW shows up first.
Scrolling through the channel lineups last night, I saw Larry the Cable Guy on Fox News, sitting there denying AGW saying it might be the sun responsible for all this. Let's get this straight, Larry the Cable Guy?
What these Luddites, well, we shouldn't call the AGW deniers Luddites for they wanted to destroy machinery which made their skills irrelevant, these unscientific types want to make a point about Doubt, as if scientists are idiots and can always be made to knuckle under by the principle of doubt. They don't doubt, but insist the scientists doubt.
- reply
parentexactly, you wonder why the acolytes of global warming
(#205101)would have mentioned it so often.
Over the last fifty or so years the universe of collection points has gotten smaller which may very well have materially affected the analysis. This combined with changing demographics, the population becoming more urban, manipulation of data, grant money being allocated to the "true believers" and science really wasn't a part of the equation.
As soon as the phrase the "science is settled" entered the lexicon, you knew the supporters of AGW had either become "Larry the Cable Guy" wanabes or acolytes of a new religion. As their faith resided in models, which excluded a good portion of the globe and its relationship with a changing climate.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentUmm, no.
(#205109)It hasn't, it has gotten larger. Temperature is measured in a variety of ways.
this affects the temperature anomaly?
cite?
cite?
- reply
parentI'll just run with someone generally viewed as being on the left
(#205113)who provides a nice summary.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentOh dear. Where does he grow his tomatoes?
(#205144)From your link
This person should get a greenhouse.
Are you ridiculing the scientific views of the left? You've succeeded.
- reply
parentHa
(#205179)after all these years, that one makes me laugh every time. I guess it's impossible for insulation to work either.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentThat's an idiotic assertion. We have terabytes of data.
(#205104)We have satellites which do nothing but look through the atmosphere tangentially, observing starlight passing through the billions of tons of crap we're heaving up into the troposphere. We map the ocean to the millimeter, observing coastlines and glaciers. To say the universe of collection points has grown smaller is ridiculous.
Further debate with you is pointless. It's an article of faith with you that scientists are idiots and the people who believe we're wrecking our planet are just Bolsheviks intent on ruining your life.
- reply
parentWe map the ocean to the millimeter...
(#205107)We do? NOAA's take on the subject doesn't concur.
Given what has happened recently on glaciers, I'll just skip over your comment.
As for the balance, modeling a complex system is difficult and models which rely on a simple correlation to fsct a complex simple system, well I will let you do the math. But in response to your comment, I've put up a new diary. Enjoy!
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentTOPEX/Poseidon
(#205108)And Jason-1. Google it up for yourself. Ignorance is bliss.
- reply
parentThanks for the affirmation
(#205114)as well as making my point.
I'll end with this question, if we have all the answers, then why is the Obama Admin redirecting the resources of NASA inward rather than into the heavens? I won't address, the repositioning of spy satellites.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentStuff and nonsense. You were handed your hat.
(#205118)We do know what's happening to ocean levels. They're rising at 3mm a year. Why is that? Perhaps the angels are pee-peeing in the South Atlantic. Or maybe global warming is melting the glaciers. Hmmmm.....
- reply
parentFacts are always a difficult thing when you are on
(#205120)the wrong side of the arguement.
Since you can't answer the question why, thanks again for making my point.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentArrrrrgggghhh
(#205121)No one can be on the wrong side of an 'arguement.' Except perhaps a recalcitrant grade school speller who refuses to learn how to spell. That kid could be on the wrong side of an 'arguement.'
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentthanks for the affirmation on my point nt
(#205131).
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentI sorta wonder what an fsct is, myself.
(#205125)I think it's Microsoft's version of ZFS.
- reply
parentDoesn't affect the trend.
(#205095)And the warmest year controversy is really irrelevant to the AGW point.
Its curious that you think that the process of identifying signal within noise is data "manipulation". Or the possibility that different researchers might, legitimately, have different approaches to analysis.
Are you uncomfortable with the fact that temperature data is statistically analysed? How else would you do it?
- reply
parentIf it was different researchers, you would certainly have
(#205102)a point but it was the "hub" of those who collect data.
Further, if you were so concerned about researches legitimately having different approaches to analysis, then you would point it out to the folks like BlaiseP; dissent, rather than being disparaged, would be welcome in the realms of science.
Speaking of dissent, this is the response.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentHave you actually read the "dissent"?
(#205111)You should really be unhappy with Mr Watts, if so.
His points are rather unfortunate for his own position.
- reply
parentNo genuinely scientific effort is wasted.
(#205000)And that, of course, was their error -- doing real science instead of stupid person advocacy.
"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.
True. The recent Monckton-Plimer debates in Australia
(#205034)showed that, clearly.
- reply
parent