|
|
|
|
|
|
by anthonyb
5700 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.