They are probably already doing this, but I thought I would suggest it anyway.

“I can’t comment further on McIntyre’s analysis without a whole lot of study to get up to speed on the jargon, details of the algorithms, etc. I really don’t have time for that right now. Also I don’t understand what his two graphs are supposed to be showing.

Color me still skeptical about the whole Surface Stations Project.”

If you can’t understand the graphs, nor the terminology and math, then why even bother commenting?

And there is little difference in the eyes of NOAA’s officials between adjusting and “cheating”. I suggest you begin with NOAA’s TOB adjustments and go from there…

I suppose if you think they cheated with the original data set (1221 stations), it’s a small step to concluding that they cheated on the 70-station dataset as well.

But if that were the case, it seems unlikely that they would allow the raw data to be accessible. (I gather that it was, from reading comments to McIntyre’s post.)

I can’t comment further on McIntyre’s analysis without a whole lot of study to get up to speed on the jargon, details of the algorithms, etc. I really don’t have time for that right now. Also I don’t understand what his two graphs are supposed to be showing.

Color me still skeptical about the whole Surface Stations Project.

He’s also ignoring the fact that anything that can be said about the vested interests of “Big Oil” apply equally, but in the other direction, to the politicians, researchers, NGOs and industries who depend on AGW being real to advance their political agendas (and careers), keep/increase their funding (and jobs) or sell their products (jobs and profits). Or as I think of them now, “Big Eco”.”

Man, you hit the nail on the head there. The car companies are benefiting from the $4500 rebate, Goldman Sachs and the exchanges will make millions on carbon credit trading, GE will make money on turbines – the bottom line is that businesses don’t give a hoot about going “green” other than the green that goes into their pockets. Capitalism is so remarkably adaptive, the problem is that the companies falling all over each other to make money from this just adds more momentum to the “green” movement. I hate it.

For a discussion of this topic see here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6382

In particular the quote:

“Based on this example, it looks like NOAA’s Talking Points comparison is between the overall average and 70 “adjusted” stations – AFTER the good stations have been adjusted. ”

The NCDC would have some credibility if they were open about what they were doing, not just report their result, keeping the details of their analysis secret.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

This describes a National Climate Data Center study which looked at the 70 stations rated “good” or “best” by the Surface Stations Project. Briefly, what the NCDC found was that the time-temperature plot using data from just those 70 stations is nearly identical to the original.

If the urban heat island bias hypothesis were correct, the plot for the good/best stations should have come out lower that the original. “That has been found not to be the case.”

He’s also ignoring the fact that anything that can be said about the vested interests of “Big Oil” apply equally, but in the other direction, to the politicians, researchers, NGOs and industries who depend on AGW being real to advance their political agendas (and careers), keep/increase their funding (and jobs) or sell their products (jobs and profits). Or as I think of them now, “Big Eco”.