A station is on a hot roof. It is moved to a grassy field a few hundred meters away. That is not going to work for you? Probably not.
It's not a reason to average in temperatures more than a thousand miles away. That just creates more error. It's like saying "OK, you've broken your leg, so let's break your arm too to even things out."
What you (and the whole of denialist circles) are trying to have me believe is that all scientists are doing the wobble trick on climate models, on climate data, on so many distinct aspects of AGW evidence.
This is like asking why Toyota, Ford, GM, and Chrysler all coincidentally sell cars. Selling AGW is what these people do; most don't even make a pretense of being objective about it. Give skeptics tens of millions in government grants and they could easily come up with models that show future cooling -- but a nonproblem doesn't sell, and AGWers go to some lengths to prevent any such thing from happening.
If GISS was wobbling the data, then it would be so obvious anyone who knew how to use Excel could prove it.
Darwin Zero.
Then they would have to have a scientific explination for it that removes human behavior from the equation.
No they wouldn't. "We don't know" is perfectly plausible, and often the right answer. AGW uses faulty "not x, therefore y" logic (that's actually what "forcing" means: they can't explain it so they blame it on CO2 -- and they don't even agree on that, some say it's half methane).
Ha, the physics aren't known well enough to model even things like the monsoons.
...
Climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction.
Monsoons aren't weather. They're a predictable climatic phenomenon that is difficult to model.
You are lying. I posted the link for MSimon, it is there. Google NCDC, use a .gov or .edu domian and you can get it all for free. All of it. Every morsel
Again, that's GISS, not GHCN. GISS doesn't use GHCN raw data. If we had GHCN, we wouldn't need to speculate what happened at Darwin Zero.
In America we practice creationism and pundent worship.
It's called freedom of religion, the reason we also managed to avoid putting Jews in ovens. People who practice science, otoh, are held to a scientific standard, unlike Europe. I'm not sure what a "pundent" is.
Are we really supposed to believe the TOD trend is so much stronger than the UHI trend that the net adjustment is positive?
...
Uh, no. If you adjusted the PM boxes downward and left the AM boxes alone the trend still exists.
Not the trend,
the adjustments. The adjustments have a warming trend.
That's why they do the homoginzation process, to tweak out obvious discrepencies. Got a better idea?
Yes, obviously they should do a detailed analysis of what TOD differences look like at each site. Homogenization is just smearing data around. Short of that -- gigantic error bars, because no one really knows what each TOD adjustment should look like.
Oh right, throw out the data, because you're such a scientifically inclined person
That's something only you've been stupid enough to suggest. I would settle for honesty.
Sure. But current observed environmental changes suggests that they don't (ice mass loss).
There isn't any ice mass loss since the 1970s. Nor would it make sense to extrapolate a calamitous future trend from them, nor a causative effect from CO2.
RC is explicitly advocating AGW, on the taxpayer's dime.
They may use their free time however they wish.
Not during working hours, which is when lots of Gavin's post are put up.
I am sure that denialists have attempted to get them in trouble though.
I'm sure the alarmists don't care about wasting taxpayer dollars. You think Hansen is going to yell at Gavin for promoting AGW during working hours? Hahahahaha! That's a good one. It's just another sign of how corrupted the "science" has become.
You're in far too deep to think critically about this issue.
Oh, the irony. You think Gavin or Hansen or Jones or Mann or Briffa are thinking critically?
This won't happen. I wish you could get it through your thick skull that it can't happen. India / China won't work it, so the OECD won't dare do it. Simple politics. You base your whole understanding of the issue on this scary thing.
If you could think logically, you would realize the obvious contradiction in simultaneously arguing such solutions are necessary and complaining that opponents are focusing on the costs of said solutions even though they're unlikely to be implemented (precisely
because most people believe they are unnecessary).