TallDave,
What proof is there the code was commented out in publication?
The publication graph does not in any way whatsoever resemble that code result which is heavily skewed? It's funny, the denialists used the code which was commented out and falsified any innuendo that might have existed about the code. Gavin said it was commented out (and in the Briffa code it is commented out), and it most certainly was! Amazing, a scientist telling the truth, we know they're evil liars and all.
Why doesn't the raw data match the massaged numbers?
The same reason raw microwave data of sea ice melt doesn't tell you shit about sea ice melt. You can, of course, read the paper that explains the methodology, or you can just go with the NASA satellite that has raw gravity data, and dismiss the microwave data which requires what you would call "fudging" the results because a scientist spent hard time looking at the physical nature of the data, and determined a nifty way to derive sea ice melt from the data.
Just stick with the satellite specialized for such a task, I say, since you are clearly incapable of deriving data from other data.
That selection is NOT ARBITARY.
That's complete disinformation. He took the *raw* data and compared it with the "fudged" data. It is clear that no bias is introduced in the "fudged" data. Hint: what you consider "fudged" data is really data which has been analyzed scientifically and only adjusted using known principles. This makes the data *better* and *more useful*.
It is a random sample comparison.
Guess which are more likely to be 100 years or longer, those in rural areas or urban/suburban? Guess which is more likely to have growing heat island effects?
It has already been established that there is no discrepancy because the methodology takes into account these outside variables that cannot be accounted for in raw data. Would you have scientists throw out data because it is imperfect? If that were the case then no data would be usable! Watch some
Feynman lectures that touch on the scientific process.
I prefer scientists use all data that they can, even if it means, using known scientific principles, making the data better by tweaking it to more closely represent reality.
Then they go on to do something even more ridiculous: they claim the 70 good stations SS found have almost exactly the same trend as the rest -- except they don't use the raw data, so the bad stations are already averaged in!
Average in? Where in their quality control step is the data "averaged in"?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res ... .html#QUAL
They adjust for time of day when different devices changed their measuring time.
They adjust for thermometer changes.
They adjust for station moves.
They estimate for missing data.
They adjust for, and account for, urban warming.
All adjustments are based on papers which suggest to do these adjustments, as a way to improve the data. Given that you don't like improved data, then you can go with the data that ignores the UHI effect.
Let's see how they're doing that... oh wait, we can't because GISS doesn't release their "correction" algorithms.
Now I don't believe that you are genuinely involved in discussion here. You are just regurgitating the same stuff you've read on other sites. Please, think about the scientific process. If you are anti-science or you think it is corrupted, I cannot help you with that. But I believe in the process for what it's worth.
Anyway, you can find all the information you ever wanted here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The algorithms are certainly released and the papers back them up. If you disagree with their methodology, then please, write a paper and tell them to knock it off because somehow it's biasing the data.
