|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 30, 2012 12:26:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 31, 2012 18:04:00 GMT 1
A clumsy attempt to change the subject. My comments were about WUWT, not the science.
As always you provide the evidence to counter your own arguments. This is exactly why they can't be trusted - they aren't neutral. They present only evidence that suits their preconceived views and much of that they distort. They are therefore useless if you want to get a genuine view of the science.
No, they are only a source of reporting that happens to suit their position.
And still no defense of the dishonest reporting which I originally reported! However I do sympathise with your position - it's difficult to defend such blatant misrepresentation.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 31, 2012 18:08:45 GMT 1
But how do we know that this report is any more honest than their previous ones? You only need to show that someone is dishonest once to cast doubt on what they say. And WUWT have been caught being dishonest various times.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jul 31, 2012 21:25:22 GMT 1
But how do we know that this report is any more honest than their previous ones? You only need to show that someone is dishonest once to cast doubt on what they say. And WUWT have been caught being dishonest various times. Priceless!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 1, 2012 11:38:14 GMT 1
Anthony Watts' WUWT simply provides a forum for discussion of climate science that does not exist in the mainstream media. Also it has twice been voted Best Science Blog. Anthony Watts is the man who instigated the Surface Stations project www.surfacestations.org/ - recording and measuring the quality of the siting of the United States Historical Climatology Network. He and his fellow volunteers deserve recognition for this unpaid work alone which subsequently prompted NOAA to clean up its act somewhat. So, you don't like the way Watts presented the findings the Steirou and Koutsoyiannis paper? Tough! Are the authors moaning? No, they say they are grateful for comments. I dare say they are also grateful for the publicity! How else would their paper have reached your esteemed attention, nickrr, the dedicated follower of consensus?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 1, 2012 11:44:21 GMT 1
Only 20% of the USHCN surface stations meet siting requirements as being either good or OK. The US network is supposed to be the best in the world. What do you think the rest are like, nickrr where no-one has taken the trouble to survey them? Good enough to determine the global mean temperature to within tenths of a degree over centuries? I don't think so! And what about all the repeated adjustments by the global database compilers which invariably warm current temperatures and cool the past? There are very few surface stations that are sited in anywhere like pristine locations. Yet these are the only ones that should be used. Certainly not the majority which are located in cities, urbanising areas and at airports? Why airports, ffs? What have the meteorological conditions necessary for safe flying got to do with measuring the anthropogenic component of temperature the curious might ask? You're obviously not one of these, nickrr. Care to comment on the above findings, nickrr, rather than accusing Anthony Watts of "lying"?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 1, 2012 12:03:13 GMT 1
"But how do we know that this report is any more honest than their previous ones? You only need to show that someone is dishonest once to cast doubt on what they say. And WUWT have been caught being dishonest various times. " As usual, accusations without foundations, when have they been caught being dishonest? ... and remember, before You get carried away any further, the site has his moniker on it so let's have no libel unless You can prove it. Worthless!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Aug 5, 2012 20:20:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 6, 2012 9:19:14 GMT 1
Well, nickrr clearly has a penchant for character assassination but where is his critique of the surface station findings showing the grotesque difference in temperature trends exhibited between the worst and best sited stations and even more grotesquely after "adjustment" by purported climate "scientists" at NOAA.
Not a peep.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2012 11:05:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 14, 2012 12:52:55 GMT 1
It tells us a lot that you rely on a report in the Daily Mail for your data! The Met Office (the people who actually published these figures) said: metofficenews.wordpress.com/There's the usual cherry picking of start and end dates etc. You really need to start basing your data on science, not media reports.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2012 13:35:46 GMT 1
Mr Rose makes it perfectly clear that he is comparing the "16 year long plateau since 1997" with the 16 year long period of rising temperature from 1980 to 1996.
But can we perhaps have your comments on the following piece of "cherry and anomaly-picking"
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2012 13:36:49 GMT 1
The Central England Temperature series, the longest thermometer record in the world (claimed as a pretty good indicator of the trend in the whole of the Northern Hemisphere) shows this, according to the Met Office. In fact, the CET goes back much further than shown above. See the ACTUAL temperatures (rather than 'anomalies') below. By the way, why do alarmists always place some arbitrary baseline across their graphs (as above) to try to isolate the recent past from the rest as if it were a grotesque departure from normal natural variation? Why did the Met Office start it's anomalies graph only at 1772? Because if it showed the full data series back to 1659 it would reveal a startlingly rapid temperature increase from about 1695 to about 1738 followed by a very steep dive that makes the rest of the series look pretty unastounding! More like the "long, slow thaw out of the Little Ice Age" that has actually happened. The actual Central England Temperature series shows nothing "alarming" at all, does it, apart from long-term natural variation? That is why it rarely gets an outing by alarmists.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 14, 2012 16:59:20 GMT 1
There's the usual cherry picking of start and end dates etc. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2012 17:38:02 GMT 1
We try our hardest to inform and entertain, Mr Sonde. Thanks for your appreciation!
|
|