[lzw]

I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted".

First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration.

As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up.

This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.)

As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)

[anthonyb]

I'll put the argument (against the paper) in simple terms:

The SPPI paper says that land weather station data is broken, temperatures are being reported as much higher than they should be, it's all the urban heat island, etc.

Yet the satellite data strongly corresponds with the land based temperatures and also shows an increase. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/surface_satellite_compa... (or read the damn blog post properly)

In addition to this, both urban and rural stations show the same levels of temperature rise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_london.gif

Which brings us back to my original question: If we take what you are saying about the land based temperatures at face value, how do you explain a) the extremely strong correlation between the satellite data and the land based data, and b) the extremely strong correlation in the trends between different stations if the data is flawed?

[lzw]

First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the subject, and attacking me, including engaging in name calling, and dishonesty, trying to force me to defend a position that I have never taken.

And even so, you are easily defeated because you have provided no evidence supporting your position. You're taking some date, and asserting that it says something without considering the nature of that data and what it is actually measuring.

The thing that has tripped you up is that you think you're referring to science when you're actually referring to propaganda. People have massaged the numbers to support a hypothesis, and you link to it, thinking it is factual. It isn't. (otherwise there is no way the rural and urban areas would show the same warming, unless there was no such thing as a heat island effect, a position I presume you are not taking.)

Thus you have jumped the gun, insulted me, and made erronous arguments while ignoring, multiple times, it being pointed out that you're doing so, because you won't pay close enough attention to notice that you're attacking a person who didn't make the claim you erronously assumed.

[anthonyb]

You, sir, are a troll wobbly. Good day.