Are we using bad data?

Anecdotally, I've been involved in rain data collection, and it sometimes comes down to: 'we can put it in this ideal location that isn't secure, or we can put it in a secure location where the data will be innaccurate ...its up to you.' Client ALWAYS chooses the secure location. 'Eh, its good enough, Im sure we can fudge the data to match a nearby monitor' meanwhile the nearby monitor is in a worse location and its poor data was the reason for adding another one.

The cycle of bureaucracy.

 

You are dodging the point and throwing up dust to hide your retreat.

 

Actually, it does not in this case.

 

But why should I be expected to Google this up to check the facts? His/her claim they should do the work. This applies particularly to those members of the board who make claim after unsupported claim, especially when I cannot find any supporting evidence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/

 

So what? It's an undisputed historical fact that there was no formal (or perhaps even informal) peer review when Newton published.

 

Nope! Showing instead that there is a huge, whopping great hole in the claim. And to remind you here is the claim

I posted the map of the weather stations to show there are waaaaaaaay more weather stations around just one state in Australia that there are airports.


And because I back MY claims with citations

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data-... the number,at over twenty thousand locations.

But if we want to pick nits and only look at temperature stations

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/a... maximum and,automatic weather stations (AWS).
Don’t think that there are 1800 airports in Australia

 

Is it? His work was published by the Royal Academy who surely would have reviewed it. But that was not the claim. The claim was that it was rejected by peer review - have fun finding that

 

The claim refers to all of Australia, not just one state. You are cherry-picking.
"where most of these temperature recording devices are now located "

 

Not my claim; not my concern. I doubt it was reviewed at all.

 

Yep! And my recent answer showed all of Australia. Not “cherry picking” but critiquing and this is why you verify all claims made in academic papers. It shows sloppy work and I am not surprised that Jo Nova let it through onto her blog. She, like Anthony Watts regularly post rubbish with glaring obvious errors

 

Bingo!

 

This is part of a larger dispute in which data are being sought.
Is this a problem? Who knows — The BOM is hiding the data that matters

 

So after proving that JoNova publishes sloppy work you come back with another link??? To make matters worse it is a conspiracy theory without basis or substance

a half witted idiot can see that the climate has changed and that temperatures have risen

 

That link is within the JoNova post you critiqued but apparently did not read. Since it explains the issue under discussion it's pretty important.

 

Turns out things are only getting more confusing.

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibr...eadly-face-of-climate-change-scientists-warn/

 

The Great Snow Cover Debate: Are We Seeing More Snow or Less?
Charles Rotter
We find the models got it wrong for all four seasons. . . . .

 

Wrong. It demands fact and logic -- two things the anti-fossil-fuel hate campaign is mighty short of.

He did. You just ignore fact and logic unless they are "citations."

 

Ha! Didn’t go to a university did you? Well, at least an Australian university- we have standards
https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/writing/types-of-academic-writing.html

If we are talking science then academic standards apply

 

you didn’t READ it did you?

 

Yes I did.

"These cuts remain one of the only examples of successful cuts to climate-warming pollution, but the new study found that those pandemic-era cuts in air pollution led to a rise in global temperatures."

Wait a minute. Cuts to climate-warming pollution led to a rise in global temperatures?

And I'm sure you'll still claim global warming is real.

 

What standards? Academic writing? And that defines proper science?

Absolutely nothing about that tripe has anything to do with science.

Or are you some kind of teacher's aide in an academic writing class in some Australian junior college hoping to someday argue yourself into tenure?

 

It is part of the process of science - did you honestly think that science is created by some TWONK sitting at a computer typing into the internet “I finks dat der Klimate mite be changin’”. Academic writing is the foundation for publication and acceptance of research by peer review. Academic publication is the core of how science is disseminated and therefore progressed.

BTW this forum has rules - I suggest you read them - particularly rule 2
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

Not by what we currently know as peer review no, but notice the originator of the claim has now dropped it

 

Did you read past that bit?

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibr...eadly-face-of-climate-change-scientists-warn/

We have known about the role of aerosols in climate change for years and years. Nice though to see some real research into it given the opportunity to track an actual downward change

Here is the IPCC chapter on clouds and aerosols
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/clouds-and-aerosols/

 

As you wish.