2010 the hottest yr on record? Who is collecting the data and how.Many of the data sites in the USA have been conpromised by being put on asfelt,near air conditioners etc.There is a clear agenda here to distort the reality for monetary gain.

Just because some ‘eco-extremist’ in this thread going by the tag ‘579’ says 2010 was the hottest year on record does not make it fact.

Most people would ‘fact-check’ themselves, from more credible sources - the World Meteorological Organisation, for example:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html

One has to ask, why could not Raycom have linked to this, rather than go on a tirade about the Northern Hemisphere (checked Israel, Russia, China or Canada, Raycom) or wait for it ... Brisbane?

Arjay
Jeez mate, you really are into conspiracy theories. Do you really think the experts don’t know about the issues of weather-station placement? Do you really think they don’t know how to calibrate the instruments or compensate the errors? Do you really think you or some fluffed-up former TV weatherman knows more about it than they do? Do you really think the experts are that stupid?

Tell you what, rather than bang on about some wild conspiracy theory, go do some homework yourself - on who collects the data, and how they do it? Hint: start with the WMO and work through to BoM – on the way you will find that the data is collected by various scientific organisations, from all over the world.

Perhaps, just perhaps – you might come to realise that these dedicated and highly professional bodies aren’t in it for the money or some nonsense conspiracy.

Leo
I’ll bounce it back - do you have anything substantive to contribute about William Briggs’ review of Roy Spencer’s book? He has been subject of a few of my comments, unlike your same old same old.

The children are playing with their “chemistry sets” but why can’t they play nicely?

Willie Warmer and his friends are popping up from behind the lounge to throw their “links” at Contrary and his friends. Contrary’s team is doing likewise.

Willie Warmer insists that his “grown up” friends agree that his links are the best but Contrary’s team maintain that their “grown up” friends say Willie is cheating because they are only throwing links from the green box.

Contrary’s friends say that equal numbers of green and red links are supposed to be thrown as those are the “Chemistry Set Rules”.

Now children, says one adult, play fair and let each other join in the game.

We don’t want them to play in our game says Willie; we only like playing with green links. Well Willie, that hardly seems fair now does it? How can you only have one side represented, you can’t even have a Chemistry set game with only one side can you?

But, insists Willie, our green links are the only true links, we have more than them, we have more grown up friends that agree with us, ours are better made and they are made by “proper” link makers.

Well Contrary, how do you feel about that, why do you even want to play chemistry sets with Willie?

Well, because we want to test the chemistry set, no point in having it if we can’t play with it is there? The rules on the box lid say that we have to “test both the red and the green links otherwise the chemistry set won’t work”.

So Willie, why can’t you play by the rules?

‘Cos my important friends say that we have more green links, more grown up friends, and better links from proper link makers, says Willie.

(TBC

Contd.

Yes says an adult, you keep saying that and you really do believe it, but that didn’t answer the question now did it? The question was Willie, why won’t you play by the rules on the box lid?

Well, well, er! Says Willie, our box didn’t have a lid; anyway my “chemist” friends say I don’t need a lid or any rules if I don’t want to.

So why do you have a chemistry set if you don’t actually want to use it? Aren’t you just pretending to play chemistry sets? says the adult.

No, absolutely not says Willie, we have got soooo much “information”, and we have tested the chemistry and guess what it works!

How did you test it Willie? Well we got even more green links and they verified our conclusions. Isn’t it exciting?

Yes Willie, but didn’t that only “test” the green links?

Oh no, “our green links are the only true links, we have more than them, we have more grown up friends that agree with us, ours are better made and they are made by proper link makers.”

So Willie, how can you possibly know that this is true if you only have the green links that fits your green answer? Shouldn’t you check the green and the red links?

No stupid, because I have the all “information”, see!

You mean the scientific information? Yes, absolutely.

And as a scientist you can interpret all this information? Well, er! Actually no ‘cos obviously I’m not actually a scientist, but I do have some important scientific friends that produce links and they agree with us.

Green links Willie?

Well er! Yes.

whenever man thinks he is God whether dressed up in pseudo science or some other arrogant mask we always see God having the last laugh. How wrong they all got it in Europe who was not suppose to see snow, our Eastern coast who wasted billions on desalination plants because the gurus said it wasn't going to rain again. Just like the textbooks on evolution will continue to be updated (albeit slowly) as fraud and deceit is uncovered again and again so the climate 'experts' will go hiding until the next drought or perceived change in a climate pattern. It is not 'mother nature' who is laughing but Father God at man's arrogance and stupidity.

William, you say -
"We do know that the IPCC models purposely incorporate positive feedback - and when the results are examined, they say, “Look at this dangerous positive feedback! Positive feedback, since it shows in the results of our models, must be real.” Circular thinking, of course."

- William this looks like assumption on your part as you've failed to explore the reasons - the science based reasons - for those feedbacks being considered to be positive. The scientific reasons to quantify various feedbacks and methodology to come up with their values - that have nothing to do with circular thinking - have been passed over by you.

Where's discussion of hindcasting? Validation? What happens to model results when those feedbacks are presumed neutral or negative? Do the results then show better or worse correlation with past climate changes? You seem to be implying that inclusion of positive feedbacks is not merely arbitrary but embodies deliberate intent to get preconceived results. If the preconceived result is correct correlation with past climate changes based on real physical processes, that's one thing but you seem to be implying something more sinister. This is a very serious suggestion and must be deeply insulting to the many honest scientists who study these areas of climate as they try to calculate feedback values whilst attempting to accurately describe and quantify real climate processes.

I think I'd like to see some climatologists with real expertise giving a critique of Spencer's claims rather than accept yours as being fair and informative.