No one even mentions WWII, not even around here (except me, repeatedly).

The world resumes warming only after the collapse of the soviet union!

Ahh, that’s your logic? A change in the weather pattern? So, should we conclude that since the South pole is cooling, earth is cooling?

And btw, polar bears don’t eat ice. The reports are that they are doing fine, but why should we care?

>> Does it matter why?

Yes, if we falsely concluded that drinking tea is causing the sun to explode, then we might all stop drinking tea for no good reason. Yea, the reason matters.

And as I said some folks are indeed with very specific motives. They are the ones at the forefront. I’m mainly speaking about the average person, not the ones that do indeed seem to have the agenda you accuse them of. So I guess I’m agreeing with you. :)

What are the possible “good faith” motives for manipulating data to support a certain political position?

>> I doubt that AGW is about restricting human activity

Do you have any support for your position? What solutions have been proposed by AGWers that don’t involve restricting human activity and freedom?

About a month ago, I joked that soon, they will come out against sporting events. To my chagrin, they did just that about a week ago. This is no joke Mike, this is not about reducing our dependence on foreign oil for national security reasons, and you know it. They would not accept massive drilling for our own oil as “solving” anything. You are deluding yourself if you think solar or wind can ever compete with burning hydrocarbons.

Rural sites getting upwards corrections? Look at the surrounding sites to see if they’re dragging the rural site up.

Why? Because that’s what their expectations are, based on their preconceptions, so they adjust the data accordingly. Lysenkoism in Russia for example.

Why no disclosure? Bad people would only use the information to discredit the TRUTH. (talk about Creationism, this is Ecologism run rampant)

And why is the overall adjustment up instead of down?

And why is the post 1980 data adjusted up even more than the pre-1980 data when all sense and reason would seem to cry out for the very opposite?

Ah, the questions we ask. We want to know why.

Why?

Why as reason? Why as motive? Why as a way of life? The Big Why?

Mike: Back at you.

After periof of shock, am attempting to regain perspecive. But SHEESH!

How could my liberals side up with non-disclosure, I ask? (The “Big How” is the other question, I guess.)

The ordering of how they do the adjustments is a big unknown, as is the rest of the actual code/algorthms. What the papers say doesn’t mean a thing, because I can say I’m doing X when actually the code does Y. The splicing of USHCN data to GHCN is a prime example.

I wonder if there are any statistics on how many “fixes” are done?

Or as Bob says, if you don’t know what’s wrong, how can you correct for it? That’s why the station surveys, including photographs for reference, is something that needs to be done.

The sad thing is that it needs to be done. :(

TCO, glad to see you agree that the specific information to replicate the adjustments just as they did them should be provided. I mean, I assume that, when you said “To show the new and original data” it’s what you meant.

Fred, I think you’re missing a few things in your comment to Neil B.

The IPCC doesn’t just focus on CO2, they include land use and aerosols. But strangly that mainly doesn’t get picked up and reported. That’s what bothers some people, various ones, because the non-CO2 part of the equation is basicially being ignored on a policy and press level.

I’d say we’re sure CO2 does, simply by absorbing IR, add “something” “in some way” to the “temperature”. In what specific ways and how much is another matter! The physics involved shows it does absorb/transfer/create heat (however you want to quibble about which specifically and how exactly). Then we have the sun, bingo. But it could be the other way around, hotter equals less absorbing of CO2 out of the air. Whatever. The disagreements are all about the specifics. That’s why everyone argues about it from different directions and in different ways.
It’s like talking about Mars or Venus or Jupiter or Saturn or Mercury versus Earth; don’t mix up the fact that if it wasn’t CO2 + heat it would be something else with proof of anything, or believe they can be compared. Or look at it another way: if the heat can’t “get out” nothing needs to absorb it anyway. But hey, everything with heat has an atmosphere, eh?

I think your Martians With Death Rays analogy is a bit excessive tho. It depends on how the argument is presented, not the argument itself. Rather than endlessly discussing the “unknown but tends to seem” role of CO2 and its extent, it’s something that should basically be ignored. No matter if AGW is real or not, there’s no reason not to develop renewable energy sources like solar (getting cheaper all the time btw) and letting technology and world wealth increase “fix” whatever problem there may or may not be. The details, or even the if; unimportant. A clean environment, reducing the impact of having to buy fuel from others on a nation’s economic system and national security basis and so on — That has nothing to do with AGW, really. Has the solar panel industry been working to reduce AGW as their goal? AGW is a non-issue if they haven’t been! “Fixing” AGW would be just a side effect. As in, not doing it “in case AGW is real and bad” but doing it for other reasons that stand on their own regardless. It makes the point moot, because it’s not the point! :)

All that said, the materials to replicate the adjustments should be given regardless. Nothing wrong with a little auditing from time to time. But at the end of the day, it probably doesn’t really matter….

Evan!

“That anyone who refuses to reveal his data and workings is not a scientist, and his work product is not science.”

Neil B, it’s not been shown that the seas are doing anything particularly unusual. In fact, what’s probably more unusual is that they’re as stable as they are! The satellite rise of the surface temperatures is pretty wimpy overall. But YMMV depending on location and weather patterns at any given time. The hurricane predictions have been way off (far lower) recently also.

Bob’s got it all right there, and well said!!!

To correct data you need to know the exact cause of the error, the exact value of the error and you have to demonstrate that the cause existed at the time of measurement. In addition, you have to demonstrate that in a comparable case the cause produced the precise effect you claim it did. In this case that is impossible. When your data is bad and the influences are either unknown or impossible to calculate, then you have nothing.

Jim, water is responsible for 95% of the “greenhouse effect” because of the amount of it and the way the carbon cycle works. (Water includes vapor, ice in or on clouds/glaciers/ground, and seas) The reason it’s not discussed as a GHG are a couple. One is that we basically have no control over it, it doesn’t stay in any one place as vapor very long, and it almost never absorbs IR. Another is that because of this (and other reasons) the press and others are not aware it’s the primary GHG. They are sloppy (at best) in their explanation of it most of the time.

The correct explanation is that water vapor is the primary GHG and CO2 is the primary forcing GHG. Although not the strongest one. I’d say like water vapor, it’s not really the behavior, it’s the amount of it. This gets left off the discussion.

Gunnar, you are correct, and as you know I agree with you. Although I would phrase it another way of course; “estimated by sampling” On your other comment, I doubt that AGW is about restricting human activity. It’s just people that are worried and are trying to get people to understand how bad it all is, because they believe they know the truth and that others don’t. This to me is why so many refer to it as a religion, but to me it’s not. It’s a belief system, and I believe it’s a political one. I’m pretty sure mostly it’s done with good intentions. That many don’t understand some people just don’t agree with them and/or share their world view is the only thing that’s ever bothered me. I’m sure some are intending to restrict or control or have ulterior motives, but suffice it to say I’m not going to run around attributing motives to people I don’t know. Even if that person is acting like a jerk or an elitist or what have you. I think many times it’s just a case of a different worldview. Oh well.

Rick, nah, probably nobody does know much. I think it’s mostly a guessing game, which is why I never get too upset about any of it.

M. Simon, it surprises me people don’t understand that when you’re not transparent, it doesn’t matter why you aren’t. I makes people wonder why you’re not, so all you can do is guess at possibilites. Some of which are not as nice as others.

Nicholas, that is correct. But when somebody wants to check your work, and so many people just attribute random unknown motives to it (“You just want to invalidate the surface network!” or some such), it makes it a social thing more so than anything else.