On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:27:33 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 3, 7:34Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:39:57 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:13Â*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in
message
[ . . . ]
IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an
evidence by those AGW turds.

And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI
amount at each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better. That's why you're
called deniers.

And that's how we know Roger doesn't understand science.

I accept your surrender, Bill. My point, thread, and topic.

Roger has a vivid imagination, at least, but it doesn't make up for his
lack of understanding of how science works. Bad data is bad data.
Trying to "adjust" it after the fact is not science, it's propaganda.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic
stations. Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe. They aren't even a good
sample of Antarctica.