3 ms·

Here's my question, to anyone that knows: is the data set in question the only data set that the (alleged, I suppose) warming trend is observable in? Or is thi

Here's my question, to anyone that knows: is the data set in question the only data set that the (alleged, I suppose) warming trend is observable in? Or is this merely a nitpick at one particular set of data, while other independent ones exist that were generated in different ways? I ask because in fight the over evolution, a lot of fuss has been made over a few very minor results that are seen as vulnerable in order to try to get people to ignore the big picture, which is clear as day (and doesn't depend at all on the individual results being picked at). While I realize not all AGW skeptics are anti-evolution, there's a big enough overlap to wonder if the same tactics or delusions might translate over...perhaps that's a cynical thought, but conservatives have earned no benefit of the doubt as regards scientific matters, so please forgive my prior bias in favor of the mainstream scientists - in every scientific field that I have personal experience in, the mainstream scientists these days are generally solid and honest, and certainly never fraudulent. If this is really the only data set that shows a warming trend, then that's a lot more worrisome.

philipn 17y ago
This is not the only data set that the warming trend is observable in. [ In fact, some AGW skeptics don't deny a warming trend, but instead argue against human impact causing this warming trend (the A). ] Nevertheless, here is what Real Climate says regarding the "hide the decline" bit (in more detail than their original post): >>Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0...) where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records. So, every climate record produced in recent years has no connection to this data. And there's lots of these. Your evolution analogy is apt. Many (very smart) people would like to pretend this simply isn't happening or isn't possible.

philipn 17y ago

This is not the only data set that the warming trend is observable in. [ In fact, some AGW skeptics don't deny a warming trend, but instead argue against human impact causing this warming trend (the A). ] Nevertheless, here is what Real Climate says regarding the "hide the decline" bit (in more detail than their original post): >>Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0...) where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records. So, every climate record produced in recent years has no connection to this data. And there's lots of these. Your evolution analogy is apt. Many (very smart) people would like to pretend this simply isn't happening or isn't possible.