On Dec 20, 6:55*am, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
If you have better data,
you are welcome to present
them here. *Until then, data
trumps fantasy.

Actually, NASA's data corrections are now being questioned...

.. . . only inside your little bubble.

Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometerhttp://www.theregister.co..uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/prin...

Simply put, Hansen's prostitution of his data is NOT to be trusted anymore.
With the raft of mistakes coming out of NASA, and his public stance and
scare mongering on global warming means that Hansen's data is not to be
trusted. Furthermore due to his public statements on warming, he has become
biased and has taken a political stance, not a science stance on this issue.

Simply put, his level of trust and respect is now going the way of Al Gore.
A few years ago Al Gore was a hero, and now not only don't we respect
Gore...he it simply an embarrassment and has become an embarrassment even to
the liberal left...

Super Turtle

Political spin isn't climate data either.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
news:9983c207-9c08-44a0-a75a-


Political spin isn't climate data either.

The problem is those weather stations only represent a very small timeline
in terms of determining some kind of trend.

Furthermore those weather stations and data was never designed as a
scientific experiment. Changes in thermometers, changes in the box
construction that houses the thermometer, changes in the paint used for the
boxes, and even changes in the location of the weather stations all affect
this data. These temperature readings are really just adequate to tell you
the temperature outside and if you should put on jacket.

Furthermore in places like Russia they've actually shut down due to budget
constraints over the years thousands of weather stations in remote areas
that they simply don't wanna spend money on anymore. It's important to note
that a good deal of the stations were in more northern areas, and we're also
not affected by urban heat effect. This just tends to sway the numbers
upward.

Attempting to use a bunch of little weather stations around the world as a
means of the scientific process and proof for AGW warming is really quite
ridiculous.

There's far too many variables and factors that come into play to use these
weather stations in a manner in which they were not designed for, and trying
to create an experiment out of that data is absolutely foolhardy on your
part.

Super Turtle