GrahamY, you're doing the same thing as Jennifer attacking the man and not the point. Brain asked the Senator if he believed that NASA landed a man on the moon after the Senator made the suggestion that NASA has faked the temperature data. to focus on the fact that he asked him the question, but ignore the context, and more importantly ignore the Senator's claim. Leads me to the same spot every time.

Does Jennifer believe that NASA and the UN are faking temperature data?

It's a simple question that deserves a yes or no answer. By giving anything else she is playing games.
The same games creationist play, the same games smoking companies played, the same games Asbestos companies played.
Don't go of on a tangential rant Jennifer.

Do you believe that NASA and the UN are faking the temperature record?

To the best of my knowledge every poster here is a google training scientist, no matter what side your post for take Lillie's advice and leave it to the trained experts to sort out. you are not going to replace years of training with reading a few cheery picked websites/blogs

There’s no doubt that climate change has grabbed the attention of many doomsayers and, as Jennifer Marohasy eloquently points out, all sorts of people, including eminent scientists who should know better, have jumped on the bandwagon. It has become a cause celebre, a global debate in which brownie points are to be collected in large numbers.

I think this is a pity, because the real issue is global pollution, which has many more elements to it than introduced atmospheric particulates, and the natural age-long climate cycles that have made Gaia what she is. After all, we wouldn’t be pumping coal carbon into the air now (far too much by the way) were it not for the results of a massive global warming millions of years ago.

It makes eminent sense to move as quickly as technology allows towards renewable, non-polluting energy sources. To do this effectively and swiftly we need to intervene in the free market to ensure price signals favour renewables rather than corporate interest in continuing to gouge huge profits from digging up the landscape.

At the same time, we shouldn’t immediately throw out the bathwater, or the baby in it. I think we can safely assume we won’t all fry in the foreseeable future by continuing to use non-renewable fossil fuels until equivalent mass capacity is available at competitive pricing levels from renewables.

Common sense is absent from much public discourse these days, and no more so than in the “debate” over global warming. Atmospheric pollution is a fact, a clear and present health risk to exposed populations, and comes from many sources, not only from the coal-fired power stations that so exercise the convenient consciences of comfortable westerners.

Global warming (and cooling) is also a fact, but it is one that calls for a different and actually far more difficult and expensive response: adapting to natural circumstances.

It is not ad hominem to point out that someone, like you, is using that technique, and you are. And if you read the article you will find that Marohasy has two examples of inexplicable and unjustifiable increases in past temperature for two sites. If this is repeated at other sites, then NASA is dealing with data that is corrupted.

That is not a tangent, it is the nub of the matter. And how else is she supposed to critique the temperature sets if she doesn't look at each piece of the sampling? You tell me, along with your reasons for why she is wrong on the two sites that she examines at detail in the article.

Otherwise we might suspect you of being part of one of the Crusher Crews, roaming the internet looking to deploy Brown Shirt tactics against anyone disagrees with your climate change orthodoxy, whatever it happens to be on any particular day.

Replying to Tombee,
I see that you assert that Roy Spencer is a Creationist. Are you sure that is strictly correct or is it that he is perplexed by some mind blowing issues in biological evolution? For instance, what about the ‘Cambrian Life Explosion’ or some incredible symbiotic relationships where one cannot exist without the other and yet somehow they simultaneously evolved in parallel? One issue that puzzles me (BTW God is not a solution for me) is that some of those fossil finds (from 500MYA?) have even sometimes been dubbed “experimental”, for instance three different rather odd fossils were later found to be all parts of but one bizarre creature.

*Regardless of his beliefs, are you asserting that it has any bearing on his skills as a scientist?*

In my reading of Roy Spencer he has made it very clear that GHG warming is nominally without doubt a physical fact but the question is by how much. In a personal communication I had with him a few years ago he admitted that whilst evapotranspiration cooling was very important, everyone was too busy focussed on radiative issues. FYI search “Roy Spencer” + “Andrew Dessler” (Re his war with Dessler, a prominent alarmist).

See later comment perhaps tomorrow or I’ll bust the 350 word limit

" the results of a massive global warming millions of years ago."
It's interesting that coal came from increased CO2 and rain forests / jungles so reducing the % CO2. That governor is now lost with burning forests in a double effect as well as burning that coal . Arctic ice is a visible thermometer which can't lie,.. aagh ..photo shopping...

Jennifer, did you notice what the graph you had so much trouble linking to showed? Not global temperatures, just central Greenland temperatures.

Your claim that "Roberts was more correct than Cox, when he claimed there had been no warming for about 21 years" is so ludicrous that it makes it very difficult to take the rest of your article seriously. I seriously can not think of a way to avoid reaching the conclusion that you're either a liar or an idiot! The apparent pause only exists when you cherry pick the start and end date, and the world has got significantly hotter since then. The warming trend exists no matter how you try to spin the data. There's an overall warming trend. There's a warming trend excluding El Niño years. There's a warming trend just looking at El Niño years. And El Niño years are becoming more frequent. Seriously, your denial of this empirical evidence does put you on a par with the moon landing deniers.

You may or may not have a point about the way temperature data has been adjusted by calibrating it against satellite measurements. Considering the shoddiness of the rest of your article I suspect not, but I'd welcome any attempt you make to prove me wrong by writing an honest article about it.