More "modified?" climate change data

[Murky]

And is it a common apologist tactic to use a weather station installed on a rooftop within an airport, within an airport, to represent late 20th century temperatures and consider that equivalent to an early-20th century station?

We all know how cities tend to be hotter than the countryside, and it's easy enough to see how that difference has been increasing as more surface area is paved over and motorized transports increased the releases of energy within cities. Do "apologists" of AGW correct station data for this?

Have any of the apologists actually read any of the leaked files? This, for example? Does it look like science? To me it looks like the efforts of someone who does not have any reliable data and is picking, choosing and manipulating what he has in order to produce results similar to those presented in previous papers. In other works, making up stuff as he goes along. So the people at the CRU really don't have the data to back their own papers. No wonder they'd been refusing to release what they did had.

It's looks like you're referencing source of a lot of AGW misinformation by linking to wattsupwiththat.com in your post. Climate science uses as aggregate of collected temperatures and adjustments are made where needed to account for "hot/cold" differences in the local tempature. A few badly located weather stations are irrelevant to the big the picture.

Apologists? That is another common denier tactic to try to label people that accept the science of AGW as being religious fanatics. The deniers behave more like a cult than anyone who accepts the science does. I've seen them spam blogs like there's no tomorrow and even using spam bots to drive up the post count. I guess the they think if the yell their inane babble long enough someone will notice. You might want to start reading some real climate science instead of denier blogs. The misinformers typically aren't scientist and are being paid by oil or coal companies.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's funny how the issue of intentional distortion of facts seems to bring out the best in people.

 

[innonimatu]

Apologists? That is another common denier tactic to try to label people that accept the science of AGW as being religious fanatics. The deniers behave more like a cult than anyone who accepts the science does.

So from your point of view it is fair to call anyone who disagrees with AGW a "denier" (word chosen for its obvious negative connotations), but it is wrong to call those who support the AGW hypothesis apologists (again a word chosen for its negative connotation). My choice or words was meant to highlight this, and it worked.

I've seen them spam blogs like there's no tomorrow and even using spam bots to drive up the post count. I guess the they think if the yell their inane babble long enough someone will notice. You might want to start reading some real climate science instead of denier blogs. The misinformers typically aren't scientist and are being paid by oil or coal companies.

The only thing I'm paying attention to are the arguments. And it seems to me that the argument that a weather station located in a rooftop on an airport will record slightly higher temperatures than one by in an unbuilt plot of land by the sea, is a reasonable one. I have yet to see any good answer to the criticism directed against the locations used for many recent weather stations.
Who pays what is immaterial to the quality of the arguments. And were it not, it would also be a game which could be played both ways, for someone is paying expenses of the pro-AGW group too.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's the trouble when you are on a mission from god. There's no time for niceties like scientific objectivity and true peer review. After all, the penguins are in trouble.

 

[Murky]

So from your point of view it is fair to call anyone who disagrees with AGW a "denier" (word chosen for its obvious negative connotations), but it is wrong to call those who support the AGW hypothesis apologists (again a word chosen for its negative connotation). My choice or words was meant to highlight this, and it worked.

The term "denier" has just become the popular catch-all for people who don't accept the science of global warming. I've heard them be called many other things; delayers (people who want to slow the transition away from fossil fuels), misinformers (people who regularly post misleading information on blogs. Sellouts, scientist that sold out to the coal and/or oil industry in exchange for their testimony. Take your pick. They all come with well-deserved negative connotations.

The only thing I'm paying attention to are the arguments. And it seems to me that the argument that a weather station located in a rooftop on an airport will record slightly higher temperatures than one by in an unbuilt plot of land by the sea, is a reasonable one. I have yet to see any good answer to the criticism directed against the locations used for many recent weather stations.
Who pays what is immaterial to the quality of the arguments. And were it not, it would also be a game which could be played both ways, for someone is paying expenses of the pro-AGW group too.

Shouldn't you at least research what it is you're arguing against? Have you read the IPCC reports? Have you anything other than denier arguments to support your conclusions?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

innonimatu: I prefer "credulist" to "apologist". It doesn't lend itself to a sidetrack to religion so much.

If the deniers want science to be done properly, they should lead by example and not create graphs that are screaming science fail like the one in your OP.

You should lead by example and not make posts that are screaming compilation fail like the one I'm now quoting and picking apart.

I am pretty sure they published the method they were using to create these adjustments. Go read it and come up with your own set of adjustments and explain why your adjustments are more valid than theirs and then you have a discussion basis.

Publishing that method is exactly what they didn't do. You go read. Let me requote the OP for you in big letters:

NIWA chief scientist David Wratt says he has no plans to release data backing up claims of different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites.

The graph in your OP is a worse lie than Global Warming proponents have ever made.

My OP has two graphs, and both of them are made with proponent data.

In conclusion, you fail at basic comprehension, and I am uninterested in listening to your shrill excuses that only higher authorities are allowed to critique authorities who are Doing It Wrong.

 

[azzaman333]

This is what happens when you put sheep in charge of science.

 

[ainwood]

By now it's in NZ newspapers The Standard, which is taking the "LIES AND TREASON" position,

umm.... the standard isn't a newspaper. Its a Labour party (ie. opposition party) blog.

 

[El_Machinae]

And is it a common apologist tactic to use a weather station installed on a rooftop within an airport, within an airport, to represent late 20th century temperatures and consider that equivalent to an early-20th century station?

How many of the aggregate weather station data reports include these controversial sites? (And I agree that increasing the blacktop around a thermometer lead to poor temp results).

I don't have an opinion on the NZ data yet. Like I say, I'm watching the other temperature proxies for my opinion on temp rising.