Re: Fwd: a modest proposal [was: Re: [asa] Phil Jones Stepping Down..]

From: Randy Isaac <>
Date: Fri Dec 11 2009 - 13:16:26 EST

I would be delighted if Glenn joined the discussion on this list. I have high regard for him and like his focus on the data. As you point out, I referred to the discussion on this list and not to Glenn. I had two aspects in mind regarding failure to deal with the data. One was the predominance of subjective statements of character assassination or denigration, or even simply undocumented cynicism of data, rather than data-based arguments. The other was that many on this list expressed doubts about the validity of the surface temperatures and the validity of models. But when we turned to data entirely separate from those areas, namely, historical correlation of CO2 and temperature, there was no response to that data, just a restatement of "I don't believe it" or words to that effect.

As for the data in the link you provide here, it is certainly impressive to see the temperature trends of each state for the last 100 some years in October. What are we to infer from the fact that less than a handful show warming? Since warming cannot be detected in these states for October, there is no global trend? That looking at less than 2% of the global surface area for 8.5% of the time and failing to see a trend invalidates the trend seen by considering 100% of the earth's surface for 100% of the time? I think I'm missing something. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I think one of the common problems with arguments from both skeptics and advocates of global warming is using a limited subset of space and/or time of the global data. Too many advocates look at one region and argue for warming. Maybe it's Kilimanjaro, maybe it's a glacier, or the Arctic, or Greenland, or wherever. But that's not a good argument for warming and it backfires. One can always find other regions where warming is not occurring. It's not an easy task to blend data from the entire earth's surface, both ocean and land, to get an accurate indication of thermal trends. Three independent groups have been meticulously doing this for many years and the results are consistent in showing a trend. Why would these results be refuted by taking a small contiguous geographical region for a subset of the time?


From: William Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:27 AM
Cc: Glenn Morton
Subject: Fwd: a modest proposal [was: Re: [asa] Phil Jones Stepping Down..]

The following is an exchange I had with Glenn after Randy said that AGW deniers on the list don't engage with the data. I should point out that Glenn uses lots of charts and graphs on his blog, ( which he couldn't use were he posting on this list.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 11 13:22:09 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 11 2009 - 13:22:09 EST