Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Copenhagen is just days away. Got to ratchet up the hysteria.
|
Agreed, sciences vs cartoons isn't going to do it. Time for another blog or something. How about ... it was colder today in Ottawa than it was yesterday? There's a start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Copenhagen is just days away. Got to ratchet up the hysteria. Did this report use CRU cooked data? Why....yes it did.  |
Oh ... Looksie. I'm a skeptic and I can roll my eyes when I make things up.
. Well young skeptic ... you are just plain ..... WRONG!
Data is discussed in chapter 2 of the report which is linked in my previous post.
Quote:
|
The two main climate reanalysis data sets are: the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) - National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) climate reanalysis data set that is referred to as the NNR data set (Kalnay et al., 1996; Kistler et al., 1985) available from the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and ERA-40 climate reanalysis data available from the ECMWF
|
And looksie here. They're even saying that the data is available to save the hacking trouble.
And what's this? More data? What's going on? Loads and loads of it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Surely there must be ample here to make a strong argument against the science ........ or at the very least come up with a witty cartoon or two or a decent blog.
Have at er ...
and Photon ... you beat me to it with the 95% of the data being available.
Told you this was just like the creationist/evolution debate. I've linked years and years of data, CRU has always had their data available. But the crucial missing link is the 5% that hasn't been released yet.
Yet there is zero evidence of one credible criticism using the data that has been available from all corners of the globe for years.