Oh well, as Emily Litella would say, Never mind.

Eh?

What would the point be?  Neither side here is interested in anything beyond tossing turds at each other, I read it and laugh because of how ridiculous everyone is.

But by all means, continue to refute their bloggers with your bloggers while telling them that their bloggers aren't admissable.

That's some damn good stuff.

Looks like we are winning:

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

@DJ -

Yep, you and China are winning the 'debate' on AGW!  Yay! 

Let's all crack open a Tsingtao and celebrate the triumph of the 'Murcan/Politburo way while watching the corral slowly bleach

Here's a book I highly recommend:

State of Fear

Enjoy!

Are you saying it isn't?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Well then, cry like a child and be a grammar nazi why don't we?

If I'm some toothless hillbilly who replied to your topic with worthless crap then why would you care?  Yet my reply caused you to not only defend yourself, but to make implications that I never graduated high school, and make grammar judgements.  All of these actions show how you really feel.

It would be, if there weren't a couple hundred billion a year going out to all the other universities and research institutes.  MIT is just one university, fifth on the list, but still just one.  Federal research grants spanked Exxons profits by more than 10/1, and on a really good year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

Along with downsizing the fictitious modern warming trends in the USHCN record, a trend created by increasing station records outside their margin of error in numerous instances that I've seen, the V2 USHCN record is also mysteriously missing the older records that discounted the global warming myth.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

I know, you hate him.  Work with me a minute, it's a real step back in time.  Click the full size links to the two surface station graphs at the bottom of the home page.  It's fucking hilarious.  Orland, a station in perfect condition, gets shifted by half a degree at both ends, and loses the three degree drop before the turn of the century entirely.  Meanwhile, Marysville, which is obviously reading hot by a few degrees based on the condition of the site, gets adjusted upwards from further back.

Remember Mumbles, they're scientists!  While you've been blowing up every time someone points out they're wrong, they've been backtracking the whole time, and not in a very scientific manner.

Look this is the internet. All you are to me is some nameless, faceless person of indeterminate age and sex that may or may not have three monitors and a dual boot linux/windows system. So what? No one cares.

Personally I have a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and I design instrumentation for laser test missiles, CCD telescopic cameras and high bandwidth encrypted communication systems (among other things). Again so what? No one cares. I'm no less nameless and faceless to you as you are to me.

All I really know is the one point you've made in this thread that you've bothered to back up with any evidence whatsoever which is that Al Gore grew tobacco. Other than that all that you have said is merely the empty words of some nameless/faceless guy on the internet. If you want to be taken seriously then make a point and back up that point with some kind of documented evidence.

You can argue about the validity of the evidence that I cite but you cannot deny that I produce usually multiple pieces of evidence for every single point that I make. There is no point in arguing with me because I'm not making any claim to any particular superior knowledge of climatology. If you want to argue against my position then you need to argue against, not me, but against the evidence that I submit.

There are plenty of folks in these threads that are "toothless". They simply spout their own opinion with no supporting documentation other than their own say so.

Regardless of potential impressions to the contrary my preference is to give folks the benefit of the doubt and to assume until proven otherwise that most people are reasonable and serious people who have real lives and real jobs and real responsibilities and all the other adult stuff that goes along with those things. However even given that I can't just start accepting things that are totally counter to the way I view thing simply because some guy "says so". I mean really do you take something as truth merely because I "say so"? Hardly, nor should you. All I ask is for folks to read my arguments and to follow my links and examine the evidence that I present.

Whether or not you believe the argument that I'm making is entirely up to you. I don't require or even expect that everyone agrees with me. I simply require that for an honest conversation that you give me the courtesy of following my arguments and examining my evidence and in return I will do the same for the arguments and evidence that you present. But for me to even try to meet you halfway you have to at least make the attempt at making an argument and backing up that argument with some evidence that's not merely "because I say so".

If you want to honestly go throught this thread and take an honest look at the arguments that everyone here has presented and the documentation they've presented to back up those arguments, you'll see that I have *by far* presented more evidence and more consistent evidence then *anyone* else in this thread. In fact if you really want to be honest about it I've probably provided more links to supporting documentation than everyone else in this thread *combined*.

That doesn't mean that every piece of evidence I present is of the highest possible calibre. When I quote NOAA, NASA GISS, the Met Office, Hadley CRU, peer reviewed papers or papers from top climate scientists then that evidence *is* in fact of the highest possible calibre. When I post videos from non-scientists then that is lessor evidence except for where these videos reference "real" evidence as part of their content which in fact they most often do. When I reference a blog I usually reference RealClimate whose members are in fact "real" climate scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Finally I may even resort to quoting from a blog that may otherwise have no claim to fame but that is *far* from the *only* evidence that I present and no where near the most prevalent.

So meet me halfway. Make a point. Provide evidence to back up that point. I still probably won't necessarily agree with you but I will take an honest look at the data you present as long as I think that you're extending the same courtesy to me.

Because they corrected it, implying they think it's wrong, ergo they agree with Watts...

What do you think they do with the USHCN data?  It goes straight to NASA and they feed it out as GISTEMP after further manipulation.  The NOAA only puts out "raw" data for the other groups to work from as part of the GHCN network.  Raw being already manipulated...

The best I can do without spending the time to write one up myself, is this.  You can play with the global map for the unadjusted GHCN over at GISTEMP and guestimate off an anomaly if you want, but it's NASA that runs the pretty pictures, not the NOAA.

You need to work on your standards, you wont accept it as a legitimate criticism when NASA shifts the temperature trend for the country by over a degree during the last century, but other than that you're taking GISTEMP at it's word.  There's also a possibility that the graph you've referenced was actually the GISTEMP output to begin with, it's been normalized already, which isn't something they should be doing with the raw USHCN data before they send it off.

I guess this means you didn't look at the stations on the surfacestations.org main page...

If you want to find stations that have had data deleted from them, you need only find old shots of the records on GISTEMP, and then compare them to the current ones.  If you want to find some logical explanation besides one of nefarious intent, I'm open to hearing it.  The Orland station record was solid.  Rural, no changes to environment, well taken care of, no single year shift attributable to failed maintenance leading to false highs before being repaired.  The section of the record that had higher temperatures than now by more than two degrees, has been cut without explanation.

Edit:  Clarification.  The graph you posted was based off V2 USHNC data, V1 was shelved in 2007.  Funny thing about V1, it looked like this before they started doctoring it.  Somehow it's gotten hotter with all the adjustments for those stations in parking lots...

That is definitely *not* the case. While I most definitely am a proponent I am most definitely am not an alarmist. I don't support trying to roll back emmissions to the 350 ppm level because to go backwards is not very realistic. But I do think trying to hold emmissions below the 450 ppm level is a reasonable goal. I also don't necessarily believe the high end of any prediction and think the middle of the road 2-3C by 2100 is where we would most likely end up even if we do nothing.

I think if folks could disassociate their fear of the *assumed* remedy from their disbelief in the science it would make for a much more productive discussion. But alas, it seems not to be.

However the point of many differnent events is that "weather" is not "climate". Weather is chaotic swings around a stable average. Climate is that stable slowly, gradually and almost imperceptibly rising "on average" year after year, decade after decade until no reasonable person can doubt the rise. The seasonal variations, the yearly variations, the decadal variations are all so much larger than the gradual increase which is what makes it so impreceptable. But climate is not waether and "climate" prediction is not weather prediction but on a yearly or decadal scale.

Think about it. All I'm asking is for folks to be honest with themselves and if (as I suspect) people true objection is to the *assumed* proposed remedy then argue against that all you want but view the science on it's own merits not on your politics.

You are no better than the evidence that you supply. However on the other hand unless someone *is* being an asshole and calling people idiots for no apparent reason (Dr. Guy for example) then when someone disagrees with you they aren't really disagreeing with *you* they're disagreeing with your *sources*.

So regardless of what people may currently think of Mann, Schmidt, Hansen and Jones they still are *in fact* the foremost climate scientists on the planet and I feel no shame nor do I feel the need to offer any apology for using them as a source. If you disagree with me then you'll have to disprove them, not me.

Same thing with NASA GISS, NOAA, Hadley CRU, UAH or any other respected source of climate data. When I quote such sources your argument is not with me but with them. Same with the peer reviewed literature.

There's an old saying that no one was ever fired for buying IBM and to me that's the same thing deferring to an accepted and established authority. Because until proven otherwise no *reasonable* person can consider someone an idiot for accepting even if it may only be the *opinion* of a proven authority in the field.

All these skeptics would essentially have you believe that *they* are certified experts in the field and frankly that is where my response is "that's nice, then prove it" whereas I'm making no claim to any particular extrordinary knowledge. Based on what you said above about "undemonstrable and unprovable" who are you going to believe someone that makes no claim to all knowing knowledge or someone that claims that they are smarter than the foremost scientists on the planet.

But that's what you're doing. You believe nameless/faceless bloggers over the acknowledged experts in the field. So why is that?

I just redesigned a board the primary component of which is a 1GSPS ADC which itself needed to be replaced. With identical input amplification and attenuation stages the input power requirement of the old versus the new ADC's were different by a factor of 3 db. While ADC's are specified in terms of input voltage levels there is no real getting around the fact that they are in reality dependent on RF power level *not* just voltage. And so while 3 db is a pretty respectable difference that's a not too unreasonable power level input variation between two dissimilar ADC's. So we added 3 db of fudge to the DSP code that drove the system level feedback. That's an *improvement* not a *deprovement*.

So just as psycho is arguing that the USHCN has changed their data to me it's almost so what? Models, data, whatever ger "refined" over time all the time and that doesn't invalidate the "experts in the field" when they do so. Nor does it necessarily elavate a blogger to some assumed level of sainthood.