Re: [asa] Fw: Temperature Records

From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 09:21:42 EST

Don:

I've read the pages you offer below. It appears to be detailed and fair
analysis. I'd be interested in the comments of those who are much more
familiar with the data sets than I.

thanks,

bill

P.S. Having worked at Los Alamos National Lab for 21 years, I visited
lamonitor.com this morning (the LA paper) to discover that a recent poll
of subscribers indicates that almost 2/3 of respondents are highly
suspicious of AGW. I found that surprising. I worked briefly on some
of the early codes and projects at the Lab in the early 90s. It was
never a well funded project. Still I'm surprised at the skewed
response.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Don Winterstein wrote:

> Randy suggested we skeptics engage with the data. A friend (PhD geologist) sent me the following message, which illustrates in great detail how another skeptic has engaged with the data. One of his principal conclusions: "People who say that 'Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK' are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too." This is the kind of thing I suspected was going on all along (although things are apparently much worse than I suspected) and is the reason I proposed having all the data reinterpreted by a different set of scientists with different biases.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> You may find the info below of interest in assessing the validity of the temperature data used to document the history and extent of global warming. This is taken from some web postings by friends of mine.
>
>
>
> "Here's an "interesting" exposition of the methods used to cook the data re Global Warming. It's enough to make your blood boil."
>
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818>
>
> "The "homogenized" data from HADCRU, GCN, and GISS cannot be trusted. Period. The Emails, bad as they are, are a distraction. The Devil is in the data itself. They need to throw it all out, and start over, using only the sparse amount of reliable raw climate data that exists." Note: GISS and Michael Mann have been caught cooking other data long before Climategate.
>
>
>
> "This analysis is for a single station. If you consider the likely error range for this one station, then consider the likelihood of similar errors at the thousands of stations used for determining the Earth's "temperature," and what the combined effect of these errors are on the analysis, the only conclusion one can draw is that this data is totally useless for finding any meaningful result. Any actual change is simply buried in the noise."

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 9 09:21:58 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 09:21:58 EST