You don't know what my qualifications are. Time series analysis could by a major function of my job, if you cant read a graph that is your fault.
Its not the same data. CRU uses surface based measurements. RSS and UAH are satellite based. The UAH and RSS are obviously better but when we need to make comparisons to temperatures before the satellite record exist CRU serves it purpose. The GISS however, is absolute crap to put it nicely.
I couldn't agree more. You know, I do not even care about the data anymore. It is all a lie as it has always been.
You would think so but scientists say it's very accurate and very idiot proof. Apparently there is very specific temperatures that are required for the bubbles they see in the ice. I'm not sure what qualifications you have to say otherwise.
You're right. I don't know. Because you're an anonymous forum poster. Therefore your word cannot be trusted and neither can your qualifications. That's why I'd like you to post actual scientific analysis. Not your uncertified opinion. Please post the anaylsis from someone qualified to give such an analysis. Like a climate scientist.
I feel that the satellite record is rather accurate. Remember it was designed and launched for that purpose, to measure global temperature. One thing to remember with the surface records is that the stations were never intended to be used to gather an average global temperature. There are so many stations at airports for a reason. They were installed for pilots to calculate lift. The idea of using this disparate and rather inaccurate data to calculate global temperature to a 100th of a degree was an ad hoc after thought. The data is poor and the method is sloppy, the most it can do is put us in the ballpark. Those who say that the surface reconstructions are better than the satellite data are just plain nuts. That's like saying you will believe the X-ray that says you are fine of the MRI that shows you have cancer.
What are you rambling about? It's a fact that most scientists (over 90% of them in fact) agree that not only is climate change happening but it's caused by man.
Are you arguing that woodfortrees linear trend function is faulty??? Lets talk about the elephant in the room. You cannot address why temperatures have been flat for 17 years and you are lashing out like a spoiled child not getting his way.
I knew you do get it. I was not sure if you would admit it. I stated the exact opposite of your response and you still posted the political line. There is no science involved here. It is a bunch of scientists protecting their funding source, nothing more complicated than that. Even if they drew a different conclusion they would not dare publish it because they would never get another dime.
I went to the Puget Sound this weekend. The shore line in the sound was in the exact same place it has always been. No higher, no lower, right where it was the last time I was there. AGW is a scam.
Scientists aren't in agreement with your climatology... http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-theories-challenged/2013/11/05/id/534783 Neither are economists... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579177651057373802
Yeah. I agree. What I meant is that there is so much information out there and it all seems to not jive and invites critisism. And that ALL scientists agree requires the willing suspense of disbelief. It has been shown to be an out and out lie so many times that the topic has lost its luster. The UN keeps resurecting this lie to the glee of the guilt ridden Obama voters and social justice freaks lap it up. It is a lie now just as it was when Hansen made his off the comment it the first place.
The trend is very apparent when you extend it out to 100 or more years. Most scientists will tell you 17 years is too short of a time to establish any sort of global climate trend. - - - Updated - - - And what funding source would that be?
You didn't provide a scientific source for why my claim is incorrect. I can of course provide plenty that 17 years is too short of a time frame.
So you think that they should become forthtellers? That has already failed, as all things progressive leftist inevitably do.
Are you absolutely oblivious to what I write? The Santer quote of 17 years in my OP is from "Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale", Journal of Geophysical Research, November 2011, volume 166. You arguments are flailing, and flailing miserably at that.
But it is. its key to all cons that even when the mark realizes that its a con they cannot walk away because admitting to themselves that they fell into the con is beyond what their ego can take.
