Qanda, the onus of proof is on those asserting that the globe is warming but let's not pretend that you care whether it's true or not. The fact that 90 percent of the measuring stations don't even comply with their own minimum standards is enough to demonstrate that you are either deliberately lying, or are literally so stupid that you don't understand what you're talking about. Which one is it?

Ok, still here but my last.

Peter Hume

Deliberately lying or literally so stupid – thanks mate, you have reinforced my opinion about your capacity to think logically and rationally without fear or favour – you know, like real sceptics do.

As I understand, the gist and main thrust of Lemonick’s article, of which on the evidence I don’t disagree with at all, was about satellites and ever improving technology and data collection that substantiates the record.

Now, apart from changing the playing field from satellites to (land based) “measuring stations”, you make the same mistakes as Raycom and other OLO sceptics do - assertion without substantiation.

Case in point: You assert that “90 percent of the measuring stations don't even comply with their own minimum standards.” How do you substantiate that? Answer - you don't.

You want “proof” of global warming? Where have you been other than ‘denialist’ blog sites, Peter? Ok, try the USHCN. Or, for starters, google Dr Thomas Peterson.

So, you and the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’ rant about perceived flaws in the surface station record, location and quality assurance and control of instrumentation. You do this as though real experts (with much more experience, credentials and credibility than former television weathermen) don’t know jack-shite what they’re talking about – simply amazing (and unfortunately, typical of you lot)!!

Now, the inimitable Anthony Watts has promised he would publish his own analysis of surface temperature data. Yet his surface-station project is over two years old now and what do we have from him? Nothing.

Moreover, lots of so called “sceptics” have been dissecting and scrutinising the surface temperature data for more than a few years. However, they have produced nothing substantial in terms of analysis. All we have are people like Watts and his flock who snipe, whine and take pot-shots from the sidelines.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Why do you shoot from the hip, Peter?

Because you (and most commenters in this thread) are either too lazy to do the science yourself, you are incapable of doing it (it’s not your field of expertise) or you are just blow’n smoke for some stupid ideological agenda. My guess - all the preceding.

Indeed, if the USHCN process/system (or any of the data collection centres) is so corrupt and so scientifically indefensible as Watt’s Up With That maintains, then ‘experts’ like Watts himself would have published real articles in the real peer-reviewed process detailing the inconsistencies, not only in the homogeneity algorithms, but deficiencies in the USHCN system itself. He has not!

Further, if in fact you, Watts or the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’ were really capable (if not serious) about critiquing the quality of the surface-station data, you would have gotten something, anything, in a reputable journal by now. You/they haven’t ... zilch, nuffin, zippo, nada – get it?

Tell you what, Peter Hume (and fellow travellers) – rather than assert things that you obviously know very little about, or throw ad homs as a personal defence mechanism, why don’t you go look up the National Climatic Data Centre and read a bit. You might not like it, but you might learn something more important than on a former weatherman’s blog site.

Goodbye!

qanda
It is time you got your thinking straight.

It is unscientific to say that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.

The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years. As they cannot put up, they should shut up.

Anyone who takes Qanda's comment at face value ought to have a read of this interview where Anthony Watts discusses his project: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2920304.htm.

Amongst the interesting things he says is that he and Roger Pielke are actually about to submit their findings to a peer reviewed journal. Apparently he wanted a complete dataset before publishing. Seems reasonable.

Irrespective of that, I fail to see how a peer review process could have any bearing on whether his work is correct or not. You can check these installations out on his site and come to your own conclusions. http://www.surfacestations.org/

It's a pretty impressive and open process, quite contrary to what we've seen with the University of East Anglia CRU.