![]() | ||
2011-11-10 13:27:47 | The BEST Summary | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.101.55 |
Need to turn this into a rebuttal, but here's the blog post: | |
2011-11-10 18:21:50 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.121.50 |
I think it would be fair to point out that there was originally some suspicion that Muller, who had taken a somewhat skeptical maverick approach towards trusting the temperature data, would somehow "arrange" that the global-warming effect would be vitiated. But it should be pointed out that the BEST team was balanced by the inclusion of others well-known in the warming and energy debate: Robert Rohde, Judith Curry and Art Rosenfeld; and the methodology of data analysis was defined prior to the processing of the data. Rub some salt into the wound. | |
2011-11-10 18:34:05 | comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.162.53 |
www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GISS_RSS_UAH_Land_ONLY.xlsx | |
2011-11-10 21:18:44 | Myth mish mash | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 143.238.130.246 |
That is some classic word smithing, Dana. My hat off to you!
Is that how you spell schizophrenic? I'd also indent the Muller quote. | |
2011-11-10 22:16:08 | The Climate Show just went live | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 143.238.130.246 |
So Dana, post this as soon as you're ready.
| |
2011-11-11 03:26:40 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
neal - good point, will add that. Robert - thanks, will have a look at that data tonight. John - I linked the short URL to the rebuttal, which I'll put together quickly right now. | |
2011-11-11 07:32:41 | ||
Albatross Julian Brimelow stomatalaperture@gmail... 198.53.65.169 |
Hi Dana, 1) " The BEST results are also approximately consistent with the amount of land-only surface warming estimated by satellite data as analyzed by Fu et al., Vinnikov & Grody (V&G), and Zou et al." Make it clear that the satellites not the gold standard or "ground" truth, that they too have issues (maybe link to Glenn's recent post). 2) It was not immediately apparent that you were referring to the scaled satellite data (i.e., TLT data adjusted to represent surface temepratures) in the para between Fig 3 and Fig. 4. I only later saw the explanation in the caption for Fig. 4. So maybe consider noting that in the body text instead of in the caption or both. 3) "The BEST results have certainly given us an insight into who the true skeptics are." It is my impression that this whole fiasco has not shown who the true skeptics are as much as highlighted the logical fallacies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the arguments used by "skeptics" and those in denial, not to mention their cherry-picking and distortion and misrepresentation of the BEST data and papers. In short, it has once again highlighted their trickery, disingenuity, and their lack of ethics and honor. | |
2011-11-11 07:59:43 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
Yeah I meant the reactions to BEST have shown who the skeptics are, not the results themselves. Will clarify that, and implement your other two suggestions. | |
2011-11-11 11:30:54 | ||
Andy S skucea@telus... 66.183.185.188 |
Good stuff! | |
2011-11-11 17:01:21 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.199.23 |
Phew, glad that's over with. Nice work Bro! | |
2011-11-11 17:01:45 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.199.23 |
Whoops, forgot thumbs up. |