One reasonable approach would be to assess siting bias as the difference in trend between GISS/HadCRU and UAH/RSS divided with 1,3.

And which group is that? Can you corroborate?

Warren replied: “I am not quite sure what he is referring to here. I will repeat what I wrote.”

Schmidt is probably referring to the UK Daily Telegraph article* and a good number of other media and blog sources that erroneously claimed GISS made an ‘announcement’ about October. The RC post isn’t just about you, sir.

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

“Tony Watts” has already run some rudimentary experiments demonstrating the bias that can be caused in poorly sited measurement stations. The “surveys” which he and his irregulars have been painstakingly documenting also show that GISS, NOAA… and done virtually NOTHING to insure the quality of the data Hansen and Schmidt are using to bludgeon the world with.

Sorry you don’t have the time to read his site, yet, apparently have plenty of time to bad mouth him. You are a typical DENIALIST!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why post a flood of insults once you can no longer respond rationally? If you believe you’ve got something balanced and intelligent to say, try respond in a balanced and reasonable way. Note your choice of words in your last few posts:

“denialists”
“you…blather away”
“your own little dream world”
“your thoroughly misguided beliefs”
“conspiracy theories”

Are you going to convince anyone that you are behaving rationally by writing like this? Flinging insults discredits the person making the accusations because it shows they are not thinking straight any more. Not everyone is a fool because they won’t agree with your opinion. As I pointed out before, be patient and be polite and you have a much better chance of getting people to see your point of view.

Funny stuff, considering it’s posted on a lie site like climate-skeptic. Of course, when one actually checks, one finds a dramatic difference between the CVs of authors on those sites and RealClimate.

It’s interesting to me that denialists continually attack RealClimate – when it’s obviously just a substitute for being able to actually _contradict_ RealClimate with some “RealData.” =)

When do they get around to doing that?

RealClimate is a very useful site because it presents the best arguments for AGW, and how its ideas on the subject are evolving over time. I recommend everyone visit that site, but think critically when doing so. What it does not address is very useful to understand also. I have no objection to anyone posting links to RealClimate, but do not assume this is a ‘balanced’ presentation of facts. RealClimate was setup by an environmental advocacy group. Same goes for, say, WWF or Sierra Club, if you want to talk science. Being objective is not what these sites are about.

I suspect that if RealClimate is ruled out as a source to quote, you will have nothing to quote from. As your links point to sites that point back to RealClimate. But this is not true if you are not intellectually lazy. Lots of good scientific reviews you can read, if you put the effort in.

‘Jennifer’ why do you keep posting under all these different names? Because you want people to believe there is an army of catastrophists objecting to the postings on this site? All with a vocabulary and repitare of insults identical to your own? Post with your real name and come across as a credible person who is not the intellectual superior of everyone you address, and we can all have a constructive discussion about the issues.

“The liar at NASA does it again.”

“October The Hottest Month? Don’t Fall For Fudgin’ Hansens Tricks!”

“Hansen: September Is the Hottest October!!!”

“Cherry picked data and propaganda from a government organization
taking taxpayer’s money”

Clearly, the people checking the work of climate scientists have nothing but the highest regard for scientific rigor. And Dr. Schmidt obviously has no reason to complain about the eminently fair treatment the lying denialist community dishes out to climate scientists. lol

BTW, when does Tony Watts’ GISS “gossip” site finally get around to proving the existence of bad data from the stations he badmouths – say, using statistical tests on their output – and showing the bad data were used and actually contaminated climate work? So far, I see little evidence he has ever done much more than post funny pictures and prejudicial verbiage..?

Did I mention I have a bridge you might be interested in?