Thursday, September 20, 2007

Ethon checks out the air conditioning. . .

UPDATE: As Boris says in the comments:

Paul is right on here, which explains why the denialist side is so interested in pushing this nonsense. It doesn't matter if the trends aren't changed at all by microsite issues, doesn't matter at all that satellite data matches the surface trends extremely well, even for the US region. What matters is that we have a propaganda tool to mislead the public, the same way we mislead the public with the increases of high altitude glaciers, the lag between temp and CO2 in the ice record, erasing Hansen's graphs, and on and on and on and on...

UPDATE: BCL has some rather good stuff on the ways of the righteous and scientifical or at least how to do the job right. Curiously, very similar to what has been recommended here.

Ethon had been looking over the real estate ads at surface stations and having seen some promising properties he went out west checking out the Class 5 stations for one with a nice nesting place, A/C and perhaps a hibachi to cook the daily liver on. On the way back he dropped in at NOAA and ran into TC Peterson in the cafeteria. Tom was happily munching on his chopped liver sandwich (believe me folks it is ALL chopped liver).

Ethon and TC fell to nattering about the seminal paper by Davey and Pielke which, with little exaggeration, could be pointed to as the seed for all the heavy breathing. They did a bit of surfing and indeed did find the smoking BBQ at the defunct Climate Science blog in a comment from Roger Sr.

Thanks Dave for your comment. Their adjustments do not address the issue of whether unrecognized systematic biases are still retained due to poor microclimate exposure and its change over time. Our recommendation is that each station used to construct the USA and global land-surface temperature data record be photographed, in the manner presented in http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf. As other examples of sites, we are compiling photographs on our web site (e.g., see http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/Alaskacoopsites.php) (with more to come).
Davey and Pielke took their Brownies and photographed some stations out in the mountain west. Out of the 10 stations that posed, six were in the USHCN network, two were "good" and four "bad". TC, being essentially the source of all homogenizations guy at NOAA (don't take this too literally) had examined the photos that Davey and Pielke relied on and looked at the data. As he said
Essentially there are two competing hypotheses about the effects of poor siting that yield very different predictions. The first hypothesis is that homogeneity adjustment methodologies would account for changes to locations with poor siting. If the homogeneity adjustments are appropriately accounting for all artificial changes at the stations, then an adjusted temperature time series from the poorly sited stations should be very similar to the time series from the stations with good siting. The trends from the poorly sited stations may be a little higher or a little lower, but they should still be about the same. This hypothesis would, of course, also hold if poor siting did not cause a bias in the original data and the homogenization did not introduce any biases. The second hypothesis is that poor current station siting produces an artificial bias in the temperature record that is not being addressed by homogeneity adjustments. While Davey and Pielke suggested that poor siting–induced bias could be positive or negative,
a point that appears to have been lost at Surface Stations although not Rabett Run as attested by some mouth foaming comments to our Cool Station of the Day series
the underlying concern about the effects of potential siting biases is whether a significant portion of the recent warming indicated by the U.S. and global temperature record could be due to this bias rather than climate change. Therefore, the second hypothesis predicts that homogeneity-adjusted temperature trends at the poorly sited station would be significantly different than the temperature trends at the stations with good siting, and that these differences would most likely be that the poorly sited stations are warming relative to nearby stations with good siting
Peterson ran the numbers, and in the words of Anthony Watt
But hey, they can "fix" the problem with math and adjustments to the temperature record.
which, of course is what Peterson found: that the trends for the good, the bad and the not very nice looking were the same after homogenization.
Now, of course, our friends in Boulder were not about to take this without some harumphing

I assumed the Peterson article would also be published with a Reply from Christopher Davey and I. However, despite my requests to permit us to prepare a Reply to the Peterson article, it was decided that there was new information in the Peterson article. My request was refused. I was written that

“In the case of your 2005 article, Jeff Rosenfeld felt that since your work raised significant (though potentially justified) criticism of an observing network that the entire scientific community relies upon and would impact the public confidence in those networks, that a companion comment was appropriate to provide additional perspective. This does not appear to be the case with Peterson’s current article, which is simply providing scientific evidence to clarify arguments for alternative hypotheses.” [Jeff Rosenfeld is Editor-in-Chief of the Bulletin of the American Meterological Society].

Since the Peterson article claims to resolve the problem, yet we have serious issues with his contribution, it would seem that the same approach of two articles would have been permitted. Nonetheless, this was not allowed. This imbalance in the ability to present climate science viewpoints unfortunately permeates the scientific literature including that of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

We have, therefore, written an article for BAMS in response to the Peterson article, and it is authored and titled

Pielke Sr., R.A, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, M. Cai, N. Doesken, S. Fall, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, H. Li, X. Lin, J. Nielsen-Gammon, D. Niyogi, and S. Raman, 2006: Documentation of bias associated with surface temperature measurement sites. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., submitted. [it should not yet be cited or reproduced as it is currently under review; comments to us on the manuscript, however, are welcome].

Eli, being a RTFR kinda Rabett went and RTFR, which has been published now. The interesting part is the conclusion
As Davey and Pielke (2005) documented and Peterson (2006) acknowledges, several USHCN stations are poorly sited or have siting conditions that change over time. These deficiencies in the observations should be rectified at the source, that is, by correcting the location and then ensuring high-quality data that are locally and, in aggregate, regionally representative. Station micrometeorology produces complex effects on surface temperatures, however, and, as we show in this paper, attempting to correct the errors with existing adjustment methods artificially forces toward regional representativeness and cannot be expected to recover all of the trend information that would have been obtained locally from a well-sited station.
Translated from the we refuse to admit we were wrong this means that homogeneity adjustments do recover regional (and thus continental) and global trends BUT, of course local information is lost and it would be better to have better stations. Let the perfect be the enemy of the useful and tally-ho.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

"reply from Christopher Davey and I"? That was written in a state of snitdom....

Anonymous said...

It is extraordinary how Eli feels obliged to defend the indefensible, apparently only because it comes out of NASA and these are 'our people'. Its a bit like defending the Hockey Stick methodology up to and including the Bristle Pine Cones.

This question of the station environments, like most questions in 'climate science' is very simple. It is that station siting and environment should conform to the specifications of the body that is running them. The body has a series of specs they must conform to in order to be, by their own standards, eligible for use in measuring climate change. If they do not meet them, they cannot be used to deliver factual input to any public policy discussion. There is no point arguing about whether you can adjust out the errors. They are out of spec and this is all you need to know they are not generating valid data - according to the body running them, not according to Watts or Steve M.

What is now needed is some empirical on the ground studies to determine how many and what kind of errors this poor siting has produced. The first stage of this is to construct an index using only the good stations. At last count, this seemed to be about 15%. 'Good' here means, conforming to the spec put out by USHCN for use in measuring climate change.

The question you have to ask about this is very simple. Why, if USHCN does not think the other stations are valid for this use, do you disagree with them? Do you know something they do not?

Marion Delgado said...

oh. wow. I was,literally, just going to write how all this was dead obvious immediately to the kind of people who would read Eli's blog to begin with, but my approach would have been "Pielke was clutching at straws and Watt is a fraud." Whereas Eli went at this very gradually, stipulating as much as possible, and inexorably like a glacier. Going directly to sources they're futzing about (as did RC and all kinds of other people). So unlike my approach, he leaves the denialists pretty much nowhere to go and nothing to do but admit they're off-base. And I really would have meant it, too.

Then I see the above. Literally square zero. I guess the good part is, it filters out the hopeless. Plus, they are always talking to the mob, not to the people they're allegedly addressing.

Hence I will do the same. Anyone who reads this: the above post is hopelessly wrong. Its claim that the USHCN has said what these keystone klimatologists are calling bad stations produce bad data and it should be disregarded when modeling or monitoring climate change is false. It puts the burden on people already producing well-matching independent data - which is what science demands - to meet irrational, mathematically and statistically illiterate demands that are obviously political. It ignores months and months of painstaking dismantling of its presumptions, right on eli's blog among other places. And it starts off by claiming in a vague way that eli's post is simply indefensible.

IF you're interested in facts:

* The trends for the completely raw data from their alleged bad stations are the same as for their alleged good stations, and both match all the other sources. The methods of deriving patterns and trends from the surface stations are not secret and they're not needlessly complex.

* To get around that with a few photos posted on hardcore anti-science right-wing blogs is, indeed, nothing to do with science or epistemology.

* The climate blogosphere, which includes, e.g., RealClimate, Tamino, Maribo, desmogblog,deltoid, denialism, rabett run, and dozens of others, has presented by now hundreds of scientific results that don't square with these politically generated theories that climate change is not happening and it's not human caused at all if it is. or with the ones that say that even if it is happening and human caused, it's very minor.

Eli has had the patience of Job with these ridiculous and speculative claims about the temperature effects at the allegedly bad stations. He's pointed out the obvious - that you don't do good science by cherry picking all the data you can say was skewed away from your desired result, and ignoring any data skewed the other way. Etc.

In other words, the above post is a lie, and a politically motivated lie. Worse, it's a clear example that you can't make progress with people for whom the truth is not a goal at all. They have nothing but propagandistic goals - where we try to mark off distance towards a better understanding, they're following the marching orders of people doing focus group testing.

Anonymous said...

If you are trying to "sell" AGW to the general public, and that is still a big sell to accomplish in the US, then sloppy surface sites (no matter how you attempt to repackage them as "quality" sites) is not going to go over well.

There is a lot of sophistry being peddled here to cover up for professional negligence of surface site standards.

The data can not be trusted to a high degree, for if it could, there would be no need for the new pristine CRN, now would there?

And Eli speaks with a forked tongue: current data is just dandy AND we should have better stations.
But, it is useless to look at current stations, even though contaminants are unknown, there is no problem. The magic wand fixes it all.

Climate professionals have largely developed a head in the sand approach to the surface site standards mess. They haughtily express no responsibility for violating their own professional standards, and at the same time, demand more money for new surface sites while proclaiming the data from current sites is perfectly valid.

Until climate professionals are forced to perform a thorough, creditable (and not butt covering) review of the US surface site network, I think the general public should view their claims about the integrity of the USHCN as suspect.

We're tough on politicians, we're tough on businesspeople; time to be tough on climate professionals who are downplaying this mess also.

Regards,
Paul S

Anonymous said...

Get real Paul. John V has shown on the ultimate denialist blog, with data from Watts, that good, bad or ugly (for you that would be GISSTEMP) does not matter. All sets (CR5, CR12 and GISSTEMP) agree remarkably well for the trend, which is what matters. I'm sure you'll find something else to quibble about soon. It's too bad, though, ya'll had a really good run with this one.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant to say "skeptic" blog (CA).

John said...

Perhaps I'm biased because I like your blog. I often have differing opinion
from yours. Sometimes it is better to differ each other because it gives a
totally new perspective in our outlook. I honestly believe yours is one of
the best blogs on the web. Thanks for the nice work. :-)

Anonymous said...

marion delgado,

I am not being sceptical about warming, CO2 or any of that stuff. The tirade of abuse is as usual totally misdirected. The thing I want is for only category 1 and 2 stations to be used, or for there to be some clear, verified statement that all categories of station are acceptable. And I will want evidence in support of this. The categories were set up for a reason.

Is it your view that data from all categories of station is legitimate and equally acceptable for climate change monitoring? It clearly cannot be an accurate record of absolute local temperatures, but I suppose its conceivable it could be accurate for trend analysis. But is this what you are saying? And what is your evidence?

Marion Delgado said...

Note that what I said about anonymous (now 3:24 mouse) stands. Note that everything I said about the data is correct, and about the trends is correct, and that everything i said about the USHCN is correct. Including what their guidelines mean.

Note that that commenter ignores the fact that we are indeed talking about trends (although at least that issue is, finally, promoted to a question), ignores several months of explanations and evidence that their claims of distortion are wrong or exaggerated for physics reasons, and indeed, simply repeats the talking point, staying "on message" without ever responding. The same pattern they've all followed for years now.

Defending the indefensible - this is a very clear illustration of probably the most obvious behavior they have in common, or 2nd most obvious after all the C&Ping, spamming, and parroting. They project on to others whatever they're currently doing. When they say defending the indefensible, they mean, that's the assigned project. When they say torrent of abuse, see above, they mean pouring out a torrent of abuse is the assigned project. It's scary, but it reminds me strongly of the president's endless Freudian slips.

And please note that, cognizant of the bad faith involved, I've personally chosen to "talk" past the denialist. I'll note the salient points that should be addressed universally, but I won't play the game of, okay, you've proven me wrong, so how about we start over a year ago and pretend no one's said anything and we waste the next year marveling at how nice the font is on my spamming of my AEI talking point?

Also, for the record, there is no professional neglect, new sites follow the guidelines since that's what they're for, the methodology by which all the data is accounted for and weighted is not a secret (unlike the funding of the denialist "experts") Eli is not lying. The troll/denialist/liar/spammer/robot/parrot/shill above is lying.

Dano said...

Oooh! Marion channeling Dano.

*sniff*.

Ahem. That explains my weird dreams last night. Nonetheless:

Please note the very, very basic point to which the denialist commenter has regressed. No data, no argument, nothing. Just the received wisdom of talking points.

I think this comment thread is the metaphorical look of the familiar reaction of dumbfoundedness and then sputtering butbutbut.

Denialists: do not bother trying to defend "your" position without data, models, testable hypotheses. Don"t bother.

Best,

D

Dano said...

Here is how non-chimps characterize station data (NCAR Table Mesa).

Or maybe here (high plains shortgrass prairie outside of Boulder, CO).

Note it's all analyzeable. Maybe one day the vast conspiracy will be peeled away, like onion breath, and ultra-useable piccies will save the polar bears from this contamination by enviro-nuts.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Rabett I was so blind. How could I have missed it. Its you and marion isn't it. Has anybody seen them in the same room together. Come on Rabett, you and he, you're the same person. I know marion has a face only a mother could love, but stand tall old boyo.

What, this is a serious climate discussion. O come on! Dano and rational thought long parted company.

You never did draw the full 2006 ice on your last diagram. It got cold again is the interp of our ice measurers. Wonderful! But how did it get cold when the Arctic has lead the way into hell after 2005.

Rabett(marion) you are gifts that keep on giving.

Bestest

JohnS

boris said...

"If you are trying to "sell" AGW to the general public, and that is still a big sell to accomplish in the US, then sloppy surface sites (no matter how you attempt to repackage them as "quality" sites) is not going to go over well."

Paul is right on here, which explains why the denialist side is so interested in pushing this nonsense. It doesn't matter if the trends aren't changed at all by microsite issues, doesn't matter at all that satellite data matches the surface trends extremely well, even for the US region. What matters is that we have a propaganda tool to mislead the public, the same way we mislead the public with the increases of high altitude glaciers, the lag between temp and CO2 in the ice record, erasing Hansen's graphs, and on and on and on and on...

EliRabett said...

Folk took Davey and Pielke very seriously, although they knew the answer, because there was earlier work that showed microclimate effects were important at a site, but irrelevant to measuring regional trends. If D&P were to be criticized it was for ignoring that earlier work.

However, what no one did was to demand all of D&Ps data. They (Peterson) went and analyzed their own data, came at the problem from a different direction and reached an understandable and correct conclusion as did P&Detc. However the later, did not do so very gracefully which is also understandable.

Dano said...

However, what no one did was to demand all of D&Ps data.

Amateur Auditors & denialists never question things that agree with their identity and ideology.

Oh, sorry: bleedingly obvious.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Paul said "If you are trying to "sell" AGW to the general public, and that is still a big sell to accomplish in the US, then sloppy surface sites (no matter how you attempt to repackage them as "quality" sites) is not going to go over well."

This is wishful thinking on Paul's part.

Most Americans

1) Don't read blogs
2) Would not take the word of a blog author over that of a NASA scientist like Hansen, even if they did read them
3) Will likely never see any of the pictures that Watt's et al has taken in the mainstream media (weather station pictures are not exactly a hot item for attracting readers)
4) Would not know what to make of them even if they did, since lots of the photos show sites that "look cool", next to lakes, with grass, trees, bushes, etc.

If Paul actually believes that the picture of the temp station on the shore of lake Tahoe with the "burn barrel" next to it is going to make the public think "hot", he is simply deluded -- especially in the case of people who have actually been to lake Tahoe. It's in the mountains and the lake water is colder than hell. I know, I once swam in it. I was the only one "swimming" in it. (Lake Tahoe is over 1500 feet deep)

But Paul is certainly entitled to go go on thinking that way. What he thinks makes no difference when it comes to public perception. None.

bigcitylib said...

Anon 6:47,
[Most Americans] would not know what to make of [Anthony's pictures] even if they did [see them], since lots of the photos show sites that "look cool", next to lakes, with grass, trees, bushes, etc.


Which is why I think Anthony's "work" has never really taken off the way McIntyre's has.

Incidentally, re Pielke, I emailed him about Steve V's analysis and asked what he thought. He referred me to Xi Lin and a couple of other co-authors. Perhaps one shall respond.

Anonymous said...

== anony 1:52 AM said: ==
"John V has shown on the ultimate denialist blog, with data from Watts, that good, bad or ugly (for you that would be GISSTEMP) does not matter."

Interesting you mention John V. His reconstructions at this stage indicate that GISTEMP overstates the historical temperature increase by .2 degrees.

Add .2 degrees to the .135 Y2K correction and there is seriously less warming in the US then the climate experts have led us to believe.

"All sets (CR5, CR12 and GISSTEMP) agree remarkably well for the trend, which is what matters."

The temperature record for the last 100 years IS part of the trend. And if John V's analysis holds up, there will be another significant downward correction in the US trend.

Regards,
Paul S

Anonymous said...

= anony 6:47 AM said: =
"If Paul actually believes that the picture of the temp station on the shore of lake Tahoe with the "burn barrel" next to it is going to make the public think "hot", he is simply deluded "

I think not. The photos shout "climate professional incompetence".

". . . in the case of people who have actually been to lake Tahoe. It's in the mountains and the lake water is colder than hell. I know, I once swam in it."

Well there you have it. No idea what your point is other then the lake being cold, but thanks for the irrelevant personal aside.

Regards,
Paul S

bigcitylib said...

Paul S.,

Interesting, last I read Steve V. had stopped his analysis in panic because it was matching too closely with the official record. Can you point out the post where he's juggled the numbers so the graphs don't match up as well.

Anonymous said...

"Well there you have it. No idea what your point is other then the lake being cold, but thanks for the irrelevant personal aside."

Right. Lakes have no effect on temperatures, not at all.

Don't get out much, do you Paul?

Anonymous said...

I assume we are talking about John V:s graphs in this thread
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048
number 124.

The the two "best categories" of climate stations, ie CRN={1,2} ones agree quite well with GISS:

I'm curious about why the nineteen twenties values are so different between the CRN=1 and CRN=1,2 station base? Obviously there weren't much air conditioners back then so something else must account for the difference, or then I've misunderstood something.

Even the "pure" CRN=1 values are in decent agreement with the GISS values from 1970 onwards, but the old values are all over the place (too few stations back then perhaps?)

-Flavius Collium

Anonymous said...

And ah, reading further, John V himself explains that it's because of location biases, quoting:
"- CRN=1 station locations are biased to the south east
- CRN=2 station locations are biases to the north
- Combination is fairly well distributed except for the midwest"
Seems there is still some way into getting at a decent temperature record / reconstruction, but a group could go the whole way and then publish the results and researchers would be joyous to have yet another data series.

-Flavius Collium

Marion Delgado said...

The assumption that the only possible goal is selling something is so telling.

We're not trying to sell ANYTHING. The denialists are. They're so far from science they think "how will you sell THAT to the Ameirican public?" is typical science talk.

Anonymous said...

Of course warmers are trying to sell something Marion. You are attempting to persuade the American public on the need to drastically, and rapidly, reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It's been a tough sell so far.

For the record, I live in Canada, and we have ratified the Kyoto Accord, and according to polls, Canadians overwhelmingly endorse action on reducing C02.

The end result in Canada? Our C02 emissions are rising more rapidly then in the US. Go figure.

Expert opinion and appeals to authority aside, we are still far, far away from actually capping and then reducing C02 emissions.

Regards,
Paul S

Anonymous said...

Talk about tough sells.

How about sales of those Station Photos that you believe/hope the American public are going to eat right up?

"Would you like a photo with BBQ's or with AC's. Coming right up. Would you like fries with that?"

bigcitylib said...

John Nielsen-Gammon (a frequent Pielke Sr. co-author) has offered a few comments re the McIntyre/Watts analysis of surface station data, as well as some practical advice on how Climate Auditors should proceed from this point.

EliRabett said...

BCL, if you are going to blog whore you need to put in the LINKY The mice are tired. It is Saturday.

Seriously tho, the silver spike.

Holly Stick said...

Paul S wrote: "For the record, I live in Canada, and we have ratified the Kyoto Accord, and according to polls, Canadians overwhelmingly endorse action on reducing C02.

The end result in Canada? Our C02 emissions are rising more rapidly then in the US. Go figure."

This is because our rightwing minority government has refused to take any concrete action about Kyoto and prefers to waste time whining about how the previous Liberal government did nothing. (True, the Liberals did very little, but the Cons cancelled the few useful programs that the Liberals had started, and replaced them with nothing.)

And also because our useless rightwing government in Alberta is refusing to slow down the oilsands development which is spewing so much GHG; and even if Harper had the brains to want to make Alberta cut back emission, he would not have the guts.

(Speaking as one who's lived in Alberta all my life.)

Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter holly stick, Conservative or Liberal govt., we won't implement Kyoto or reductions at present.

Your attempts to label it as a "right wing" issue is dishonest.
The Liberals had a majority . . . and years to implement reductions.
The "feel good" programs they had in place were just that . . . "feel good".

My real point is we as Canadians emit more C02 every year. No government is forcing us to build bigger homes, buy more cars or take more vacations in exotic places.

Actions are more relevant then words, and by our actions, Canadians have thumbed their noses at C02 reductions.

Regards,
Paul S

Holly Stick said...

"Actions are more relevant then words, and by our actions, Canadians have thumbed their noses at C02 reductions."

No, in fact we are learning what we can do and doing it. But our governments have a duty to act as well, and they are failing to do their job.

Anonymous said...

Wrong, wrong, wrong holly stick.

We aren't "doing it" except giving lip service to the notion of C02 reductions.

Doing "stuff" like putting a few ghastly compact fluorescent bulbs in the house or naming a pet Kyoto are simply window dressing.

Collectively, we Canadians are failing to do our job; you can't expect the government to lead us where we refuse to let them go.

Regards,
Paul S

Holly Stick said...

Aren't they supposed to be the leaders? The problem is that the Conservatives are very bad leaders. Municipal governments are acting. Just because you prefer to be blind does not mean most Canadians do.

Anonymous said...

C02 has no political affiliation. However, the Liberals had the time and most importantly a majority to implement their C02 plan. They didn't; tokenism aside.

No leader can make us implement massive C02 reductions unless we give such leader our assent. If we really want massive C02 reductions, we will get them, but since we don't *really* want them, we don't get them. Simple, eh?

Regards,
Paul S.

Holly Stick said...

You're an idiot. Canadians waznt environmental action. The Conservatives lie and pretend they are doing something. Canadians do not believe them and will turf them in the next election in favour of leaders who do intend to take concrete action.

Meanwhile, it is the duty of government to implement massive CO2 reductions by passing regulations such as emissions standards on all vehicles and on all oil companies, and then enforcing them. It is also their duty to revive the conservation programs they cancelled, and to encourage conservation of energy in everyday life. Acting like leaders, in fact.

Anonymous said...

holly stick said:
"You're an idiot".

That the best you can do holly? Coming from you, that's a compliment.

"Canadians waznt environmental action."

Maybe so, but Canadians don't want Kyoto.

"The Conservatives lie and pretend they are doing something."

Less hypocritical then the Liberals who signed Kyoto and never did anything.

"Canadians . . .will turf them . . . in favour of leaders who do intend to take concrete action."

And what, put the do nothing Liberals back in? Dion is walking around with his pants around his ankles and a toilet seat around his neck; he is going to lead us???

". . . it is the duty of government to implement massive CO2 reductions . . ."

It is the duyt of govt to respect the will of the people. And massive C02 reductions aren't on the table.

"Acting like leaders, in fact."

Indeed. Acting.

Regards,
Paul S

Anonymous said...

Those photos of Alaska sites are really something else.

Without a doubt, they should call in Anthony Watts' Surface Swat team and close down the whole state.

bookem, danno. (or is it Dano?)

Note how close the Stevenson screen is to the child's plastic 2-foot slide in the Port Alsworth photo.

Do they have any idea how much heat those little tikes generate when they slide?

Null_Void said...

The so-called Global Average Temperature trotems are taking a beating. That's what happens when you try to use a Totem that has no unique definition.

Anonymous said...

How are the Surface Station post card sales doing, Paul?

I bet they're a really "hot" item among the BBQ-loving public.

Jose said...

"If you are trying to "sell" AGW to the general public, and that is still a big sell to accomplish..."

Indeed, how well is the "selling" of evolution doing?

There are some creationists who'll give AGW the time of day but most of them don't and I suspect never will. These people are people the reach of rational argument.

Anonymous said...

Actually, until just recently we didn't have to sell anything to these people because they were at the fringes with regard to influence on policy.

But unfortunately, Bush has opened up the White House to some of the most extreme fundamentalist Christian leaders in the country and these people have had a direct hand in policy over the past 7 years.

I'm not talking about the millions of run of the mill Christians (eg, Catholics, Lutherans, etc) in this country who do accept most scientific pronunciations (except maybe cloning).

I'm talking about the extremists (bible thumping, "fire and brimstone" born again evangelicals) -- many of them certifiable kooks.

You're right. Such people are incapable of rational thought. In an ideal world, it would not make any difference what they think.

Alas, there's the rub.

EliRabett said...

Eli thinks that WUWT is Roger Srs vanity site. If you dig through the history of the thing it looks pretty clear that Pielke was the one behind the USHCN survey, starting with Davey and his piece on Colorado sites which Peterson shot down

IEHO the whole surface station thing has always been a Pielke special. All we need are the Emails.