Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 09:32:09 EST

And your posts do not post temperature anomalies, a usual denialist technique to hide the trends. If the stations did not have 12 months of data in the year they weren't counted. This is what I instructed the graphing software to do. You can go to the same web page and generate your own plots if you wish.

1. Choose all the stations north of the Arctic Circle
2. Only include data where there was 12 months of coverage per year
3. Use the raw data
4. Plot average anomaly

So whatever CRU chose for their homogenization I didn't use it. I came up with the same answer they did anyway using only the raw data.

On Dec 17, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Glenn Morton wrote:

> I am going to use one of my posts to highlight something interesting. In my study on Siberia I used 51 stations. Rich points us to a graph made from 19 stations. I make clear what I did to my data. Rich shows us a picturre processed with no history or details of what is done with the missing data. That is not a good way to do science.
> I must point out something else--the utter corruption of the CRU group where it comes to criticism. Rich keeps saying that all these studies show Siberian warming. What he doesn't seem to let everyone know about is that the CRU group actively kept critics out of print. They had a vested interest in not being shown to be wrong, but they were allowed to be the reviewers on papers.

Snip illegally stolen e-mail. Since you copied this you must have changed your mind concerning your copyrights on your e-mail. I am now free to post your e-mails to me sent me in the past, right? Note the date of the e-mail and look at this more up close plot noting what happened after 2004:

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 17 09:33:03 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 17 2009 - 09:33:03 EST