Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Basically, I need to trust that most of the source data is available on the internet based on your statement (as the raw data from HADCRUT3 is toast, there is no way to prove your claim), but the comments in the source code providing the homogenization of the climate temperature data is too vague (written by an actual UEA developer based on the incoherence of the previous and current source code being relied on to provide these infallible datasets.) Just because you don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate doesn't diminish the efforts of others to do so.
|
Explain to me how it is that Thatcher's toyboy Lawson would say in a recent debate on the issue in Canada
Quote:
There has been no further global warming this century."
|
Quote:
What it actually shows is that eight out of the 10 warmest years since records began have occurred since 2001.
|
Quote:
Lawson, of course, was deploying that tired old trick of cherry-picking his starting date. If you begin the series at 1998, you might indeed conclude that temperatures have fallen, since 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded. But if you begin with 1997 or 1999 or any other year in the 20th century, you discover that there has been plenty of global warming this century. That wasn't the most sophisticated ruse, was it?
|
Sure take a pill ..... as long as you guarantee me you'll accept the numbers for what they are and the subsequent analysis of them ... for what they are ... and the criticism of then for what they are.
Or .... we could take the numbers as they stand and like Lawson spin them.
What's the story? The data is false orrrrrrrrrrrrrr the data is ok if I can spin it?
My point is .... let's start talking about the lies and the misinformation being thrown out there. Do the lies and obvious misinformation work both ways? WHO DO YOU TRUST? Sure they do. In the next few days watch out for Bagor's exclusive "Plimergate" and the cruel shredding of HOZ's universe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics