Josh Cryer wrote:Jccarlton wrote:Are there any independent checks on the NCDC stuff?
Yes, I independently checked it myself and I am writing software to show that raw USHCN = raw NCDC. Now, if you want me to OCR their images, then you're just someone who is in such denial I don't know what to tell you. I might see what I can do, in the distant future, about OCRing a random sample, but that's just a ridiculous level of ignorance you are portraying. Because that data was complied by meteorologists who have absolutely nothing to do with climatology. People who made records, in fact, long before climate change was even discussed outside of obscure papers.
As far as I know the only independent study was the surfacestations.org website which found many discrepancies in the US surface station organization and station monitoring.
No it didn't. The classifications fit those that NCDC station histories found. All it did was show scary pictures of certain stations to put doubt in the record. No where does SurfaceStations.org show that NOAA records were wrong.
Until we have absolute guarantees that the data are clean, the data has to be treated as dirty.
This coming from a side who can't even do proper data analysis, who embarrass themselves when they do it (see D'Aleo claiming Central Park data was raw when it was homogenized, see all of the many sites claiming that GISS provides raw data for US stations).
At this point the only reliable source are those that have never passed the hand of the climate cabal and their centers like NCDC, GISS, CRU and NCAR.
You cannot claim the NCDC is in the same group as the others, NCDC is meteorology, GISS, CRU, and NCAR are climatology. NCDCs job is to measure weather so people know what to wear, whether or not to stay inside, or take an umbrella. That job is done by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals (over the decades).
Actually, you can claim anything you want, but this particular claim puts you squarely in the denialist camp, because you're going deeper than homogenization, you're going to raw data compiled by many thousands of people, and that is truly bizarre and incoherent.
The only clean data is the original paper logs from each station, for each day. The only reasonable dataset that is accurate and untouched is, as I have stated, the local newspaper daily reports. That is, unfortunately what we are left with.
That is frick retarded. Sorry, censor me if you will, but you are saying that to trust the data you must OCR it *again* and do all the labor *again*, that's just insanity, sorry.
But the NCDC does provide it, so if you want to provide this record, please, by all means, do so. There's no guarantee from me that I will ever even attempt this. Mike over at Cheifio agrees that they correspond with the digitized record.
If there was something really catastrophically wrong with the climate the cabal's bad practices have made it nearly impossible to determine in the bad data and noise they have created. The climate cabal has created their own monster, but we all have to live with the consequences.
It's
not the climatologists' fault that the meteorologists' records are not coherent over a long period of time. They get whatever data they can.
Joch, what I cannot understand why you still trust those people and the garbage they create.
Because I value honesty, and I find their side to be more honest than the other side.
Frankly I cannot understand this need to hold on to something that no longer even has the illusion of science to support it. What is this need to believe that the human race is somehow destroying the planet?
You are a delusional ignoramus. You can accept that climate change is happening without giving one darn iota about the environment. If you care about fellow human beings, however, you ought to want to do something about it.