Reply To: Where did my post go?

[Brian H]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

because the raw data is completely incompatible with their assertions.

Not a rhetorical question but if the raw data has been withheld how do you know this? Were can I get a copy?

Readers might find this site enlightening http://www.surfacestations.org/
It shows that at least 80% of surface stations, used to construct the word temperature, have an officially recognised error margin greater than the much reported 100 year change in temperatures.

There’s lots of documentation of the “withholding”; here’s a wee taste of it from the Canadian who popped the “hockey stick” gas-bag: http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/01/sent-loads-of-station-data-to-scott/ .

And from http://www.tysknews.com/News/untangle_climategate.html :

No reliance can be placed upon purported temperature trends that depend arbitrarily upon a careful selection of start-dates and end-dates. The reason is that the temperature record is what scientists call “stochastic” – it jumps up and down more or less at random, so that the trend-line calculated from it (the straight line in each of the above graphs) is highly sensitive to the scientists’ choice of startpoints and endpoints.

One of Monckton’s explanations of the graphs is worth repeating here:

Therefore there is no anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record, and no scientific basis whatsoever for the assertion by the UN’s climate panel that the warming rate is accelerating. The UN’s graph is merely a pictorial lie, deliberately intended to deceive. And the lie continues to be paraded every time Railroad Engineer Pachauri gives one of his rambling, out-of-his-depth lectures. It is also paraded in the Technical Support Document by which the US Environmental Protection Agency purports to justify its proposal to treat carbon dioxide as though it were a pollutant rather than a harmless trace gas absolutely essential to all life on Earth and currently – compared with former eras – in somewhat short supply in the atmosphere.

[Note: Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN panel’s science working group, is not a scientist, but a railroad engineer.]
…
When Mr. Watts first began to point out these defects in how temperature is measured, and began to attract publicity for his work via his admirable website, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com , the first reaction of the scientists in charge of the network of U.S. temperature stations that he has surveyed was to remove from the public domain the list of precise locations for the sensors, so that Mr. Watts could not survey any more of the stations.

However, there was an outcry at this scandalous attempt at concealment of data that had been paid for by the public, and to which the public were on any view entitled.

The bureaucrats – who had at first tried to react exactly as Professor Jones and his colleagues at the Climate Research Unit had reacted, by hiding public scientific data – climbed down and republished the locations for their temperature stations, and Mr. Watts’ survey is now all but complete.

It shows a horrifying picture of gross carelessness and neglect on the part of Mr. Karl and the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, and of Dr. Hansen and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Garbage In, and hand-sculpted Garbage Out.

But here’s a fer-‘zample of the kind of station report that they didn’t want shown: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/coalcreekco2009.gif

Attached files