Comments on: Urban Bias on Surface Temperature Record

By: David

David — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:46:07 +0000

Can I just say that I feel that Wally’s February 28 comment pretty well encapsulates what we are trying to say all along..!

By: Pogo

Pogo — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:47:44 +0000

To “wcthomps” and his idea of “misrepresentaion of science”, may I draw your attention to the following?

“Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.”

Ernest Rutherford

By: hunter

hunter — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:54:41 +0000

@wcthomps,
You would look much more convincing if you would show just where and how this is so embarrassing.
It seems to Mr. Meyer is showing fairly clearly that at heart AGW is exhibiting the classic sign of crap science: making huge conclusions based on evidence that is barely outside the margin of error and variability.

By: ADiff

ADiff — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:31:36 +0000

So Wcthomps’ argument amounts to “because I say so”. How convincing.

By: wcthomps

wcthomps — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:36:05 +0000

This is an embarrassing misrepresentation of science. Mr. Meyer would do well to stick to economics. Moreover, the mere notion that he is capable of commenting on such science based upon his background in dynamical systems and control (which I very much doubt, as engineers obtain only limited experience in the fields, especially in terms of the complexity required for computational climatology) is personally insulting to me (as someone who actually does work in those fields.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:06:53 +0000

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a better non-cherry-picked data set — IIRC they simply removed all sites w/ a lat/long within XX miles of a the home city of any NBA or NFL team.

By: ADiff

ADiff — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:56:23 +0000

Backward projections clearly don’t match historic conditions. An extended period (13+ years, and counting) that have been entirely divergent from what AGW models predict, make it clear not only the model, but the data itself, should be re-considered. And yet AGW’s chief spokesmen seem fixated on responding to policy disputants and ruminating on conspiracy theories (Mann’s most recent NPR interview is an excellent example) while ignoring substantive challenges to their models, theory and the integrity of underlying data sets. Could it be they just can’t answer these challenges? Their responses raise some disturbing questions. Mann said he would address science, but all he talked about was policy and political opinion! Does a desire for particular policy objectives have complete precedence over any other consideration for he and other AGW advocates at this point?

Does Mann really think it’s productive of any objectively beneficial end to base a discussion on the premise that refusal to agree with his perspective is proof one’s evil and that everyone who questions him is a member of some vast organized conspiracy funded by the oil companies? Can he have so totally lost touch with reality to actually believe that?

It’s a sign of believers in conspiracy theories that they take a few fragmentary truths and spin them into a seamless fantasy explaining everything in a way completely exonerating their own particular preferences and view of reality. Michael Mann sure sounded like he was well down that road in the NPR interview I heard this weekend….

Is that locale a recent arrival for him, or has he actually already been camping there for some time?

By: mbabbitt

mbabbitt — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:53:51 +0000

Please don’t feed the troll.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:32:02 +0000

Wally,

Dr. Edward R. Long, ex NASA, performed the study, not Watts.

By: Arn Riewe

Arn Riewe — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:36:11 +0000

One of my favorites is the “science fair” project of son & father. While they are not “climate scientists” someone please tell me what’s wrong with the UHI analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI&feature=related