H1N1 and Climate Change

[Pliny]

so sad for you Pliny, you're not even in the game here... in the context of that related discussion concerning UAH trends... that prediction for Jan, 2010 will simply present the latest trend end point... at maximum positive temperature value - ever.

So weather is an argument for climate change. Wyly has warned against that.

since you presume to have a game, perhaps you can assist Riverwind in helping supply citation support that shows evidence of his claim towards a legitimate cooling trend. You can do that, right Pliny?

It's been done. The IPCC confirmed it. Or are they still credible?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Pliny

[Riverwind]

Ok, well your ethical standards presumably include allowing those accused of wrongdoing to defend themselves, and the investigation by UEA will give you that input.

The defenses have already been presented via proxies like Real Climate. Mann has been given editorial space in major newspapers to defend himself. I find the explainations offered to be completely inadequate. The only thing the UAE investigation can do is determine whether Jones actually violated the FOI laws in the UK. If you look back at my statements you will find that I have not accused Jones of breaking the FOI laws because I do not have enough information to determine that and I am willing to defer judgment until the investigation completes.

That's a good point, but inherent in that is the idea that scientists should be taken at their word and commentators should not be.

I agree provided scientists recognize that such trust comes ethical and professional obligations. The trouble with climate science is the scientists think they are entitled to the trust without assuming the obligations.

That's not the case with the political media that has developed over the past 10-20 years. They're not held accountable for what they say, and their adherents trust them more and more.

Bias in media is a matter of opinion. Alarmists have insisted for years that 'balance is bias' and that sceptics should not be allowed to express their views. OTOH, sceptics insist that the media does not give their views a fair hearing. I am still disgusted with the G&M over its coverage of the climategate issue and think they should be called to account for the blatant bias yet I suspect you would not agree. So the question becomes: how do you call people to account when no one agrees on the standard to use? What happens in reality is people vote with their wallets and only support media that support their biases. This has led to a media that is fragmented in echo chambers appealing to different market segments.

A similar thing is happening with climate science. People like me who feel climate scientists have failed to live up their ethical and professional obligations to the public are simply refusing to accept their scientific claims until they have been independently verified. This, in turn, makes it impossible to achieve the political consensus required to enact the policies that many climate scientists feel are necessary. In a rational world the scientists would recognize that they have failed the public and work to restore trust. Unfortunately, most scientists have responded with name calling (e.g. denalists/flat earthers) and conspiracy theories (e.g. big oil/big tobacco).

Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

What happens in reality is people vote with their wallets and only support media that support their biases. This has led to a media that is fragmented in echo chambers appealing to different market segments.

It's not publications like the Globe and Mail, National Post or NYT that are the problem, it's the online and broadcast community.

One solution is for right-of-centre folks to decry the far-right blog monsters, and for left-of-centre folks to decry the far-left blog monsters.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Riverwind]

One solution is for right-of-centre folks to decry the far-right blog monsters, and for left-of-centre folks to decry the far-left blog monsters.

It is not going to happen. I have come to the view that a certain segment of the population are black and white thinkers - e.g. one can be right or wrong and there is no middle ground. These are the people who form the extremes of any debate and are simply incapable of viewing their opponents as anything other than evil.

[Michael Hardner]

It is not going to happen. I have come to the view that a certain segment of the population are black and white thinkers - e.g. one can be right or wrong and there is no middle ground. These are the people who form the extremes of any debate and are simply incapable of viewing their opponents as anything other than evil.

Agreed, but my solution is not aimed at changing their minds, so much as showing the unenlightened that their claims are extreme and not the view of all with those political stripes.

[waldo]

Show me anything that was in the peer reviewed literature before May 2006 (IPCC AR4 cutoff date). You will find nothing. The criticisms that Jones added to the IPCC report were nothing but his opinion and were never submitted to any peer review process. Jones had an obligation as the lead IPCC author to include the MM paper in the IPCC report. Jones knew this and that is why he said he would have to 'redefine what peer reviewed literature is' in the climategate emails. It was unethical for him to use his position as an IPCC author to suppress research that he did not agree with and it is unethical for any scientist to defend what he did.

it would seem the onus is on you to disprove the basis for the intended rejection... where is the support for McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7)? You keep whining but other than your noise you can't present anything to substantiate their premise. I offered you but one example that soundly refutes McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7) - Here... once again: Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity. Where can you show counter refute from McKitrick/Michaels for the challenges they received? Since you're so adamant that there's actually something substantive within McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7) you should really take up it's cause... why can't you show support for McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7)? Why is it all you have to offer is... noise?

[Riverwind]

it would seem the onus is on you to disprove the basis for the intended rejection.

The onus was on Jones to provide a reference to the peer reviewed literature that actually refuted the paper in the IPCC report. He did not because none existed at the time. That means his criticisms were baseless. If you disagree then you come up with a paper from BEFORE May 2006 and show that Jones referenced that paper in his criticisms of MM. The 2009 Schmidt paper is irrelevant (it is also wrong but that is not the point being argued here).

Incidentally, you will never understand the points I am making as long as you insist that the ends always justify the means in scientific investigations. i.e. you cannot excuse someones unethical behavior simply because you believe he is right. In science the process is more important than the answer.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

It is true that many people misinterpreted what that email was talking and this error is something that bugs many sceptics too.

The "basis for the presentation" is NOT soundly understood in dendroclimatology. It basically crap that Briffa pulled out of a** in order to salvage what would otherwise be a useless reconstruction. He needed to hide the decline in the public graphs because showing it would make it painfully clear that his tree rings were garbage. It was dishonest.

what a charade you continue to run... in some self serving lapse you thought you could placate Michael Hardner by suggesting "misinterpretation" did occur within the denier's email anal probing. When pressed you fall back to attempting to defend the fallacious manipulations of the denier side. Most certainly, most absolutely, the problem of divergence within dendroclimatology, as the basis behind the presentation, is well recognized - well understood... the "problem", as the basis for the presentation. I previously linked to a Briffa paper that spoke directly to the issue of divergence... that spoke directly to his (and his et al) considerations and handling of divergence within their (historical) research - but you'll continue to ignore that, won't you? As you continue to ignore past MLW discussions on divergence and continue to recycle your fabricated noise.

as stated previously, as you continue to ignore it: through a published paper, Briffa proved that his reconstruction was not influenced by including... or excluding... the small sample of trees from the one small region of Russia that exhibited divergence. Through a published paper, Mann proved that his reconstruction was not impacted by the exclusion of tree proxies. Is divergence an issue? Of course, that's why it's a significantly researched area within dendroclimatology... you know, actual scientists heavily invested in doing actual research towards better understandings within climate science. The consensus is that post-1960 - where divergence has been noted - that until such time as divergence can be better explained and causal relationships established, it is best not to include post-1960 tree-ring proxy related data... as I said - "hiding in plain sight".

and, of course, you'll completely ignore the disingenuous antics of Spencer in manipulating the presentation of his/Christy's UAH data... as pointed out to you in this recent post. Of course you'll ignore it; but really, c'mon... surely the title itself should elicit some response from you - "Spencer hides the incline"!

but don't let me lose another grand opportunity to ask you how McIntyre is coming along with his re-analysis of Briffa's latest update... you know, the update that paints McIntyre as the master buffoon? The update that McIntyre promises to get around to... once he finds the time... somehow, somehow, that's fallen completely off McIntyre's radar - hasn't it? How convenient for him since his minions (like you) won't hold him to his stated commitment. But really, where's the surprise - McIntyre has no game when actually challenged directly.

you're an absolute hypocrite in saying that... where does the Heartland Institute fit in your ethical evaluations? Or the Competitive Enterprise Institute... or the American Enterprise Institute... or the George C. Marshall Institute... or the Exxon Mobil Foundation... or the Heritage Foundation... or the Cato Institute... or etc., etc., etc.

Why should I? The Heartland institute was not a lead author on a IPCC report. The Heartland institute is not responsible for one of the major temperature datasets which are used to determine the extent of warming.

in your one-sidedness, you were attempting to cast ethical aspersions - of course, you'll deflect when someone highlights examples of entities that have demonstrated unethical practices in attempting to assist the denier side (directly or indirectly) in the orchestrated campaign to purposely fabricate and/or obfuscate the science. You can't show there are any problems with HadCru; and accordingly, you continue to highlight your own unethical interpretations/manipulations.

Get over yourself. If a scientist expects me to trust their scientific judgment they better be prepared to demonstrate that their scientific judgment is sound. As far as I am concerned, any scientist who defends Mann and Jones has no integrity and their scientific judgment cannot be trusted.

notwithstanding your ever prevalent McIntyre hard-on for Jones/Mann, even if... even if there were accepted (as investigated) acknowledgment questioning ethics, in your wild-eyed manifestations, you'll extend to include the thousands of practicing scientists and to exclude the scientific consensus. Based on a couple of individuals... even a handful of individuals. Again, the preposterous Riverwind global conspiracy!!!

[Riverwind]

is well recognized - well understood... the "problem", as the basis for the presentation.

Prove it. Show me the peer reviewed literature that supports Briffa's claim that the divergance was due to some factor which was unique to the late 20th century. This paper will have to include actual experimental results that demonstrate the biological mechanisms claimed.

You won't find it because such a paper does not exist. Briffa's claim is just something he made up because if he did not make up some excuse he would have to throw out his entire dataset. That is also why he needed to 'hide the decline' because anyone with any analytical ability would smell a rat if the decline was left in.

You'll extend to include the thousands of practicing scientists and to exclude the scientific consensus. Based on a couple of individuals... even a handful of individuals

I make my decisions based on evidence. In this case the evidence shows that climate science community is made up of thousands of practicing scientists either find behavoir of people like Jones and Mann to be perfectly acceptable or work in environment were they cannot express their opinion on that behavoir. What it means is I cannot trust the scientific judgment of these people.

Of course there are exceptions (Judith Curry of Georgia Tech) but her voice has been drowned out by the Mann/Jones supporters.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The onus was on Jones to provide a reference to the peer reviewed literature that actually refuted the paper. He did not because none existed at the time. His criticisms were baseless. If you disagree then you come up with a paper from BEFORE May 2006. The 2009 Schimdt paper is irrevelant (it is also wrong but that is not the point being argued here).

excellent... then you'll have no problem showing exactly that - since you say it's wrong, present the challenge to, "Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity".

what you continue to ignore is what the actual report states - I quoted it previously and linked to it. But your blind eye refuses to read/accept it.

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

the statement, itself, clearly offers linked support... I've provided you the links within this most recent quote - I expect you'll ignore them anyway. You're now explicitly presented linked support within the report that absolutely includes the basis you say doesn't exist... the paper citations are there for you to continue to ignore. In your ignorance, you also don't distinguish between 'lead author' and 'coordinating lead author'... 2 very different roles within the IPCC review process. As a coordinating lead author it most certainly was Jones' responsibility to manage (coordinate) across the varying parts of the report - hence the statement, that does exactly that... it links to other parts of the report, showing the basis behind the statement.

more and continued Riverwind noise!

[Riverwind]

the statement, itself, clearly offers linked support.

Great. Now you go an find the peer reviewed literature support for the claim that "Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant". You will find that no such paper exists and the referenced sections have a general discussion that does not refute MM in any way.

As a coordinating lead author it most certainly was Jones' responsibility to manage (coordinate) across the varying parts of the report

The distinction you are making is irrelevant. A coordinating author has no right to exclude papers from the report which he did twice and then add unsupported negative commentary on a paper after being forced to include it. Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Prove it. Show me the peer reviewed literature that supports Briffa's claim that the divergance was due to some factor which was unique to the late 20th century. This paper will have to include actual experimental results that demonstrate the biological mechanisms claimed.

You won't find it because such a paper does not exist. Briffa's claim is just something he made up because if he did not make up some excuse he would have to throw out his entire dataset. That is also why he needed to 'hide the decline' because anyone with any analytical ability would smell a rat if the decline was left in.

normally you don't fall to your complete and absolute obtuse side that often... divergence within dendroclimatology is not, obviously, as you say, "Briffa's claim". Of course, it's a recognized research path within the science itself. Again, in your clouded pomposity, "hiding in plain sight". Why continue your nonsense - since it's been shown for it's idiocy, where even few within the denialsphere bother to parrot it anymore. Of course, you'll continue to ignore the Briffa paper that definitively showed that the small selection of trees, within a small isolated area within Russia, those that exhibited divergence, when either included - or excluded - had no significant impact on the reconstruction... of course, you'll ignore that. And of course, you'll ignore the question/challenge that sees McIntyre completely befuddled and unable to refute the latest Briffa update... of course, you'll ignore that - won't you? How convenient, for you!

I make my decisions based on evidence. In this case the evidence shows that climate science community is made up of thousands of practicing scientists either find behavoir of people like Jones and Mann to be perfectly acceptable or work in environment were they cannot express their opinion on that behavoir. What it means is I cannot trust the scientific judgment of these people.

translation: the Riverwind global conspiracy runs strong... runs deep!

[waldo]

Great. Now you go an find the peer reviewed literature support for the claim that "Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant". You will find that no such paper exists and the referenced sections have a general discussion that does not refute MM in any way.

I linked you a paper... you continue to ignore it. In fact, you say it has problems but fail to substantiate your claim. Should we add this to your continued citation hold back? You also beak off about the premise behind the McKitrick/Michaels paper, but won't (can't?) offer anything that actually substantiates that premise. C'mon, it you're prepared to state the paper I offered has problems, are we to simply accept the 'Riverwind decree'. What are the problems - where's your citation support for scientific challenge to the paper?

The distinction you are making is irrelevant. A coordinating author has no right to exclude papers from the report which he did twice and then add unsupported negative commentary on a paper after being forced to include it.

nothing was excluded - the statement is clearly there. you just don't like/accept the statement and the reports linked to support for that statement.

Edited January 18, 2010 by waldo

[Riverwind]

I linked you a paper... you continue to ignore it.

You linked a paper from 2007. Such as paper CANNOT be used to justify Briffa and co's actions in 2000.

nothing was excluded - the statement is clearly there. you just don't like/accept the statement and the reports linked to support for that statement.

Then you are admitting that Jones just made it up because he did not like the MM paper. If there was actual support in the peer reviewed literature for his comment he would have referenced that paper. If you disagree then produce the paper. Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

so sad for you Pliny, you're not even in the game here... in the context of that related discussion concerning UAH trends... that prediction for Jan, 2010 will simply present the latest trend end point... at maximum positive temperature value - ever.

So weather is an argument for climate change. Wyly has warned against that.

does your clownish response presume to allow you a semblance of back-tracking? Ya see, Pliny, when trending is being discussed, aspects of that trending will be discussed - aspects that have nothing to do with your presumptions towards weather vs. climate. In this particular case the discussion centered upon Spencer manipulating his UAH presentation (via scale) to purposely de-emphasize trend incline and to, effectively, eliminate 2009 entirely... you know, Pliny - the endpoints of that trend line. I'm surprised you would want to continue any focus on Spencer "hiding the incline"

since you presume to have a game, perhaps you can assist Riverwind in helping supply citation support that shows evidence of his claim towards a legitimate cooling trend. You can do that, right Pliny?

It's been done. The IPCC confirmed it. Or are they still credible?

excellent Pliny! Let's see that IPCC confirmation that upholds Riverwind's claim touting a global cooling trend... you really are an idiot.

[waldo]

You linked a paper from 2007. Such as paper CANNOT be used to justify Briffa and co's actions in 2000.

Then you are admitting that Jones just made it up because he did not like the MM paper. If there was actual support in the peer reviewed literature for his comment he would have referenced that paper. If you disagree then produce the paper.

you're losing it... that's right, I linked to a paper that refutes McKitrick/Michaels (2004/7) and am also presuming to use it to, as you say, "justify Briffa in 2000". You can't even keep this discussion clear in your head. You're losing it man!

as report statement has linked support (for the statement)... I've provided that to you - you simply won't acknowledge it or accept it. Meanwhile you can't/won't supply anything to substantiate the McKitrick/Michaels premise... nor can/will you produce anything to show the problems you state exist within the Schmidt paper - again, it's 'Riverwind decree'.

[Riverwind]

"justify Briffa in 2000". You can't even keep this discussion clear in your head.

I was responding to the post above:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15681&view=findpost&p=501188

[Michael Hardner]

excellent Pliny! Let's see that IPCC confirmation that upholds Riverwind's claim touting a global cooling trend... you really are an idiot.

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the biggest problems with the entire debate is that it became personal and can't seem to move away from that ?

[Keepitsimple]

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the biggest problems with the entire debate is that it became personal and can't seem to move away from that ?

Waldo can't help it. Look up narcissist in the dictionary and you're sure to see Waldo's picture. He's atextbook example. Every one of his posts is dripping with condescension and superiority. But he's important to the debate because he exemplifies the polar opposite of Denier. Funny thing is, I have yet to see an actual Denier on this board.....quite a few sceptics, but not a single Denier. And then there's Waldo - the true believer.

[waldo]

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the biggest problems with the entire debate is that it became personal and can't seem to move away from that ?

Waldo can't help it. Look up narcissist in the dictionary and you're sure to see Waldo's picture. He's atextbook example. Every one of his posts is dripping with condescension and superiority. But he's important to the debate because he exemplifies the polar opposite of Denier. Funny thing is, I have yet to see an actual Denier on this board.....quite a few sceptics, but not a single Denier. And then there's Waldo - the true believer.

Simple, your very personalized reply about sums up Michael's point - where others would have read Michael's comment as a generalized assessment on the, as he states, "entire debate", you... instead... chose to mistakenly leverage that comment while ignoring/denying your own most personalized comment history - very telling, indeed. As for my personalized contribution to this post reply, I'll simply reaffirm your "DD" status - you claim skepticism while denying your own denial. As I pointed out to Pliny, a real skeptic wouldn't be scurrying about like you/he, parroting any and every piece of crap that comes along... a real skeptic would actually challenge the crap with the same vigor you/he bring forward in presuming to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Michael... your point is well taken; however, on this board, that ship sailed long ago. As I recall, in that early period when all the global warming related threads started to appear, there was an initial degree of decorum that passed rather quickly. I fully acknowledge two-sided contributions to that loss of decorum, although I also appreciate different boards have varying degrees of limp-wristed, thin skinned individuals who take offense to most anything. And speaking of the majority of those skeptic/deniers around here, a respected colleague highlighted a psychological related phenomenon to me - the "Dunning-Kruger effect"... definitely, a phenomenon that applies well to the majority of incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers, where:

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers tend to overestimate their own level of skill

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers fail to recognize and acknowledge the genuine skill in those they presume to debate

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers fail to recognize and acknowledge the extremity of their inadequacy

- if incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these MLW skeptic/deniers can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill

Michael, your attempts to point out the extremism on either side of the debate is recognized... your attempts to steer the discussion towards the actual science are most appreciated. Certainly, myata also tried to bring forward a less personalized and more targeted approach/methodology to the discussions, suggesting a proposal that would allow skeptics to bring forward their favoured challenges to the existing consensus on AGW global warming - unfortunately, MLW skeptic/deniers would have no part of it... apparently, an inability to quote-mine from the denier blog scientists threatened the comfort zone of MLW skeptic/deniers and, of course, being focused toward the actual science equally threatened the MLW skeptic/deniers - go figure!

[blueblood]

And speaking of the majority of those skeptic/deniers around here, a respected colleague highlighted a psychological related phenomenon to me - the "Dunning-Kruger effect"... definitely, a phenomenon that applies well to the majority of incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers, where:

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers tend to overestimate their own level of skill

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers fail to recognize and acknowledge the genuine skill in those they presume to debate

- incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers fail to recognize and acknowledge the extremity of their inadequacy

- if incompetent MLW skeptic/deniers can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these MLW skeptic/deniers can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill

Here's an idea, you provide proof that MLW posters are incompetant. I know I can prove that you are...

[waldo]

Here's an idea, you provide proof that MLW posters are incompetant. I know I can prove that you are...

buddy, I narrowed the Dunning-Kruger effect to only target the incompetent skeptic/deniers. Certainly, you shouldn't take exception as it wasn't a comment directed to yourself, in that you aren't able to actually participate in climate related thread discussions given your difficulties in expressing yourself... and, of course, you've fully acknowledged giving your speaking proxy to your big brother, RW.

[Riverwind]

Certainly, myata also tried to bring forward a less personalized and more targeted approach/methodology to the discussions, suggesting a proposal that would allow skeptics to bring forward their favoured challenges to the existing consensus on AGW global warming

Myata's 'offer' was joke because he insisted on unilaterally setting the terms of the discussion. If he was really interested in having a reasoned debate he would have been open to negotiating the terms of debate. By refusing he demonstrated that he was acting in bad faith and was not really interested in a reasoned debate.

As far as debating AGW goes all you seem to do is cut and paste. You don't understand the issues and when the issues are explained to you flail around and then cut and paste more stuff that has nothing to do with the point being made. You are the classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have much more interesting discussions with alarmists on other boards who understand the material enough to actually have a debate.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

Myata's 'offer' was joke because he insisted on unilaterally setting the terms of the discussion. If he was really interested in having a reasoned debate he would have been open to negotiating the terms of debate. By refusing he demonstrated that he was acting in bad faith and was not really interested in a reasoned debate.

As far as debating AGW goes all you seem to do is cut and paste. You don't understand the issues and when the issues are explained to you flail around and then cut and paste more stuff that has nothing to do with the point being made. You are the classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have much more interesting discussions with alarmists on other boards who understand the material enough to actually have a debate.

That about sums it up.

[waldo]

More of the temperature stations (thermometers) that I was asking Riverwing about:

NASA AND NOAA CAUGHT IN CLIMATE DATA MANIPULATION;

NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON KUSI-TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA and NOAA scientists improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9pm. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6pm EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

Climategate comes to the United States in this new report by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. They discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and cherry-picking the location of weather observation stations. The report is available online here.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures calculations was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for. The greatest losses were in areas where, NOAA and the other data centers claim the warming was the greatest like Siberia and Canada," according to D'Aleo, who adds "In these regions, NOAA 'estimates' temperatures based on stations that may be 700 miles away.

E.Michael Smith notes "When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations, and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature sampling with lots of guesswork, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

Smith and D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.KUSI.com..

Simple, how much of your self-described balanced skepticism did you apply to this gem of yours? It's bad enough we have a need for NASA to respond directly to a TV weatherman... although it does speak to that new conviction I mentioned of a short while ago... where the actual scientific community is reacting in a much more timely manner to trounce the deniersphere nonsense.

NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

I'm sure you'll accept RC's response, given your balanced skepticism:

Some comments on the John Coleman/KUSI/Joe D’Aleo/E. M. Smith accusations about the temperature records. Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and check-able by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their ‘accusation’ is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and is absolutely nothing to do with NODC or NASA.