tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5034516135756792519..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: How not to frame an FOI request - if you really want informationSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18643235307008812902015-03-30T09:17:20.608+11:002015-03-30T09:17:20.608+11:00He ran away from the bet, and quite ironically, to...He ran away from the bet, and quite ironically, told me to stop obsessing about this issue and get a life. My offer is still on the table with Anthony, explicitly cast in terms of seeing whether he has more spine than his favorite attack poodle.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64321891833392034782015-03-30T08:24:19.456+11:002015-03-30T08:24:19.456+11:00When dbstealey replies you know that there is no s...When dbstealey replies you know that there is no sane politically convenient answer.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30548461460071797162015-03-30T08:03:44.503+11:002015-03-30T08:03:44.503+11:00Update: the only climate contrarian response to Vi...Update: the only climate contrarian response to Victor's post was from dbstealey, quintupling down on the "it's just a request for weather data" while conveniently ignoring Kent Clizbe's interestingly delayed "clarification" of the contents of the FOIA request itself ...<br /><br />https://archive.today/XeQvw#selection-4547.0-4555.109<br /><br />... as well as the bizarrely naive notion that a successful lawsuit against the Feds would somehow run them significantly less than $262,000. So, for what it's worth, I have thrown down the gauntlet:<br /><br />https://archive.today/CY4qm#selection-8341.0-8347.42<br /><br />If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15349101479559682322015-03-30T03:53:54.435+11:002015-03-30T03:53:54.435+11:00I plan on following up, but it may be a bit of tim...I plan on following up, but it may be a bit of time. The income-tax deadline here in the USA is coming up fast, and I have to stop punting on my tax-return paperwork. :(<br /><br />The additional plots (direct comparison of all stations vs. no airport stations, etc.) are definitely doable -- I'll try to put together plots and post links to them here.<br /><br />Some time ago, I got a "bee in my bonnet" about developing a prototype app that lets anyone compute global-temperature results from any combination of stations they choose (via mouse-clicks). <br /><br />What I ended up with is the package I used to generate the results that I posted to that utsandiego forum. It's a "home brewed proof of concept" prototype app that combines a Google map browser interface with a simple anomaly gridding/averaging "back end". Plots are generated via commands sent to a GnuPlot session via unix pipes (popen(), etc.).<br /><br />The app lets me knock out "quick turnaround" global-temperature results that refute almost any "temperature manipulation" claim a denier can think of. <br /><br />The whole ball of wax runs inside a stripped down Linux virtual machine; the app will run on newer Windows & OSX(10.6+) PC's/laptops with at least 2GB memory.<br /><br />I stashed the package away on my Google Drive account for safe-keeping; for anyone who's interested, here's the link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0pXYsr8qYS6RS1tRTBjODI4N00&authuser=0<br /><br />It's a fairly big download, but if you have a decent broadband connection, downloading it should take just a few minutes. (It's not as bad as some Windows updates in that regard.)<br /><br />To run the app, you first have to download/install Oracle's VirtualBox app (available for free at http://virtualbox.org).<br /><br />For folks who are comfortable installing/configuring desktop/laptop software, it's a pretty straightforward procedure to get the app up and running with VirtualBox.<br /><br />It would be neat to see a "professional-grade" web-based implementation of this concept available on-line -- I believe that the skepticalscience folks may be working on that right now.caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37089421378587517072015-03-29T14:24:40.247+11:002015-03-29T14:24:40.247+11:00I just looked, your comment made it past the mods....I just looked, your comment made it past the mods.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34701580014603464262015-03-29T14:21:33.427+11:002015-03-29T14:21:33.427+11:00Victor,
Indeed the thread is dominated by support...Victor,<br /><br />Indeed the thread is dominated by support for Goddard. I should have been more clear that the pushback is higher than I would have expected.<br /><br />I hope your comment gets through.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11084089352502390812015-03-29T13:57:55.022+11:002015-03-29T13:57:55.022+11:00"FOI'ing is for yahoos who are too incomp..."<i><b>FOI'ing is for yahoos who are too incompetent to figure out how to download the NOAA data/documentation and RTFM.</b></i>"<br /><br />It deserves to be repeated, again and again...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42438509802369953122015-03-29T13:27:43.710+11:002015-03-29T13:27:43.710+11:00:)
Long data dumps but as you say, Victor, it'...:)<br /><br />Long data dumps but as you say, Victor, it's interesting. Yes, it would make for an interesting paper or blog article. I hope you both follow this one up. Let us know back here if you do an article, and where.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11234147244795498132015-03-29T13:18:06.308+11:002015-03-29T13:18:06.308+11:00Poor Sou. Those are long data dumps. :)
But inte...Poor Sou. Those are long data dumps. :) <br /><br />But interesting. The percentage of airport stations is a lot higher than I had thought. Even in the more recent decades. Still not sure if a difference for airports of 0.1°C can explain everything, but the fraction of airport stations is large enough to explain a part. Hard so guess from the figures alone how much. Maybe it is also partially a different sampling of the different climate. For the urban heat island, Zeke Hausfather found that to be something you need to take into account, if I recall correctly.<br /><br />Would you be willing to write a guest post based on your San Diego comment? (Without the references to the mitigation sceptics.) It is okay that the figures are preliminary; it is clearly stated that they are tentative. I have a blog series on reasons for a too low trend in the raw data, airport relocations would fit nicely in it. And maybe such a post will stimulate someone to study this and write a scientific article on it.<br /><br />If I may make a wish, a 3rd plot with the global mean temperature with and without airport stations plotted together would be nice. Now you have to estimate the size of the effect by comparing the differences between the two curves and GISS. And a plot with the percentage of airport stations would also be interesting.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51506888256101859392015-03-29T13:13:46.075+11:002015-03-29T13:13:46.075+11:00Ned W.
Yes I agree the climate change deniers wou...Ned W.<br /><br />Yes I agree the climate change deniers would just move the goalposts again.<br /><br />In my opinion to ask the NOAA, BoM or whomever to explain their results in detail is arrogant. I don't see it as a "good faith" request. It serves a number of purposes:<br /><br />- it is a distraction for the agency<br />- it is pandering to the faithful, setting up a "David vs Goliath" narrative<br />- they might get lucky and turn up a mistake or anomaly which can then be used for propagandaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46845674059442156962015-03-29T13:05:31.327+11:002015-03-29T13:05:31.327+11:00That thought occurred to me as well.That thought occurred to me as well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7821083301172670432015-03-29T12:20:08.720+11:002015-03-29T12:20:08.720+11:00And here is a year-by-year count of "not at a...And here is a year-by-year count of "not at airport" stations. As you can see, a significant fraction of stations with data predating the existence of airports (or even airplanes!) are designated as "at airport" stations (based on their locations where they last reported data).<br /><br />1880 197.749 <br />1881 214.333 <br />1882 220.583 <br />1883 239.5 <br />1884 246.667 <br />1885 263.25 <br />1886 284.25 <br />1887 306.416 <br />1888 330.833 <br />1889 365.25 <br />1890 389.416 <br />1891 452 <br />1892 520.583 <br />1893 699.083 <br />1894 770.249 <br />1895 819.333 <br />1896 866.417 <br />1897 939.5 <br />1898 983.501 <br />1899 1021.5 <br />1900 1055.08 <br />1901 1091.08 <br />1902 1131.75 <br />1903 1165.5 <br />1904 1203.67 <br />1905 1243.5 <br />1906 1265.08 <br />1907 1358.67 <br />1908 1387.41 <br />1909 1425.5 <br />1910 1450.25 <br />1911 1487.92 <br />1912 1518.67 <br />1913 1557.67 <br />1914 1605.75 <br />1915 1626.5 <br />1916 1643.5 <br />1917 1659.67 <br />1918 1655.83 <br />1919 1662.25 <br />1920 1657.92 <br />1921 1707.25 <br />1922 1733.41 <br />1923 1760.33 <br />1924 1791.33 <br />1925 1817.17 <br />1926 1847 <br />1927 1868.92 <br />1928 1887.17 <br />1929 1912.17 <br />1930 1925.42 <br />1931 1978.83 <br />1932 1996.83 <br />1933 2026.33 <br />1934 2040.75 <br />1935 2064.33 <br />1936 2115.08 <br />1937 2140.33 <br />1938 2148.92 <br />1939 2182.92 <br />1940 2218.67 <br />1941 2234.41 <br />1942 2235.25 <br />1943 2253.5 <br />1944 2247.33 <br />1945 2249.92 <br />1946 2284.67 <br />1947 2317.33 <br />1948 2348.16 <br />1949 2392.5 <br />1950 2446.58 <br />1951 2808 <br />1952 2898.5 <br />1953 2990.83 <br />1954 3056.49 <br />1955 3099.41 <br />1956 3141.75 <br />1957 3121.25 <br />1958 3156.08 <br />1959 3179.67 <br />1960 3231.16 <br />1961 3383.08 <br />1962 3445.58 <br />1963 3504.99 <br />1964 3549.08 <br />1965 3674 <br />1966 3701.92 <br />1967 3691.75 <br />1968 3677.84 <br />1969 3682.84 <br />1970 3650.67 <br />1971 3598.58 <br />1972 3579.17 <br />1973 3553.83 <br />1974 3554.25 <br />1975 3513 <br />1976 3439.75 <br />1977 3415.5 <br />1978 3403.42 <br />1979 3360.09 <br />1980 3334 <br />1981 3215.83 <br />1982 3155.91 <br />1983 3140.58 <br />1984 3069.5 <br />1985 3023.25 <br />1986 2958.67 <br />1987 2916.67 <br />1988 2899.58 <br />1989 2843.33 <br />1990 2602.25 <br />1991 1945.67 <br />1992 1897.42 <br />1993 1739.67 <br />1994 1720.17 <br />1995 1675.92 <br />1996 1712.42 <br />1997 1717.25 <br />1998 1710.58 <br />1999 1699.83 <br />2000 1676.33 <br />2001 1525.58 <br />2002 1525 <br />2003 1550.25 <br />2004 1543.92 <br />2005 1555.92 <br />2006 1565.34 <br />2007 1564.67 <br />2008 1561.58 <br />2009 1550.75 <br />2010 1545.25 <br />2011 1508.58 <br />2012 1468.58 <br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9719756322129507342015-03-29T12:08:43.594+11:002015-03-29T12:08:43.594+11:00Hi Victor,
Below is a "data dump" of th...Hi Victor,<br /><br />Below is a "data dump" of the number of "at airport" reporting stations that my program identifies. (Stations without enough data to compute a 1951-1980 baseline for at least one of the 12 months are excluded from the processing)<br /><br />The number of stations is fractional, because I weight the station-count by the number of months each station reported in a given year. That is, if a station reported data for 6 out of 12 months for, say 1935, I count it as "half a station" for that year. <br /><br />As you can see, there are a lot of stations designated as "airport" stations going back before the Wright Bros first flew an airplane. <br /><br />1880 136.5 <br />1881 150.25 <br />1882 157.75 <br />1883 158.833 <br />1884 163.333 <br />1885 167.083 <br />1886 178.333 <br />1887 184.333 <br />1888 196.833 <br />1889 210.417 <br />1890 216.75 <br />1891 231.583 <br />1892 257.75 <br />1893 294.583 <br />1894 306.167 <br />1895 317.167 <br />1896 330.667 <br />1897 335.834 <br />1898 337.083 <br />1899 341.333 <br />1900 345.084 <br />1901 345.25 <br />1902 356.667 <br />1903 366.834 <br />1904 369.084 <br />1905 375.584 <br />1906 381.667 <br />1907 395.917 <br />1908 403.751 <br />1909 412.667 <br />1910 418.25 <br />1911 429.834 <br />1912 434 <br />1913 439.666 <br />1914 446.083 <br />1915 444 <br />1916 440.584 <br />1917 441.25 <br />1918 447.917 <br />1919 453 <br />1920 456.667 <br />1921 472.25 <br />1922 475.584 <br />1923 487.834 <br />1924 498.25 <br />1925 500.917 <br />1926 506.75 <br />1927 509.418 <br />1928 510.917 <br />1929 522 <br />1930 528.25 <br />1931 566.083 <br />1932 578.166 <br />1933 585.501 <br />1934 584.75 <br />1935 589 <br />1936 594.5 <br />1937 596.916 <br />1938 607.667 <br />1939 626.334 <br />1940 637.083 <br />1941 681.417 <br />1942 694.167 <br />1943 713.667 <br />1944 729.083 <br />1945 763.416 <br />1946 777.416 <br />1947 792.415 <br />1948 899.999 <br />1949 1075.58 <br />1950 1123.83 <br />1951 1411.5 <br />1952 1474.75 <br />1953 1513.42 <br />1954 1538 <br />1955 1514.75 <br />1956 1536.58 <br />1957 1543.17 <br />1958 1559.5 <br />1959 1583.75 <br />1960 1624.08 <br />1961 1686 <br />1962 1723.34 <br />1963 1791.42 <br />1964 1802.42 <br />1965 1811.5 <br />1966 1819.59 <br />1967 1812.34 <br />1968 1790.67 <br />1969 1781.59 <br />1970 1771.67 <br />1971 1660.5 <br />1972 1653.92 <br />1973 1649.33 <br />1974 1640.33 <br />1975 1625.25 <br />1976 1581.42 <br />1977 1580.17 <br />1978 1578.17 <br />1979 1535.75 <br />1980 1524.92 <br />1981 1459 <br />1982 1388.08 <br />1983 1383.92 <br />1984 1369.17 <br />1985 1342.25 <br />1986 1333.92 <br />1987 1336.92 <br />1988 1324.75 <br />1989 1324.42 <br />1990 1205.42 <br />1991 1080.83 <br />1992 1064.5 <br />1993 1079 <br />1994 1079.5 <br />1995 1048.75 <br />1996 1047.75 <br />1997 1045.58 <br />1998 1037.83 <br />1999 1049.5 <br />2000 1027.83 <br />2001 917.333 <br />2002 915.251 <br />2003 939.418 <br />2004 863.334 <br />2005 796.417 <br />2006 786.751 <br />2007 806.25 <br />2008 812.917 <br />2009 822.333 <br />2010 837.749 <br />2011 810.666 <br />2012 807.75 <br /><br /><br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78287668621343512112015-03-29T11:28:42.753+11:002015-03-29T11:28:42.753+11:00Interesting discussion. The number of people conde...Interesting discussion. The number of people condemning Goddard is rather limited, however.<br /><br />Just left a comment. Mine normally take a few hours to get through moderation. Although I work on the main topic of WUWT (station data) they do not seem to be keen on talking to a scientists about that. I guess what you expect from a stealth political blog.<br /><br /><i>davidmhoffer, the NOAA FTP server always contains the most current version, which is computed every night. However, if you want an older version of GHCNv3 you just have to send an email. No need for a FOIA request for that.<br /><br />The problem of this FOIA request is that the time is not limited and that thus also correspondence is asked from a time that everything was done on paper. That is a lot of work.<br /><br />Just a month ago this blog was all up in arms because of the FOIA harassment of 7 of your friends by Democrat Raul M. Grijalva. Wouldn’t it be a good idea if all sides stop their FOIA harassment? This is not how science is done. This is targeting scientists for their politically inconvenient results.</i>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76728094488812795802015-03-29T10:58:26.435+11:002015-03-29T10:58:26.435+11:00To exclude airport stations that never have been m...To exclude airport stations that never have been moved is almost impossible for a global dataset. That information is hard to get. <br /><br />The computation of the global mean temperature should be done better for a scientific publication, just to be sure, but I would be surprised if it mattered much.<br /><br />What surprises me still is that a difference of 0.1°C seen in a small subset of the data (the stations that currently are at airports) makes such a difference for the global mean temperature. <br /><br />Thus I wondered whether you had a new way to compute the difference that gives more than 0.1°C, a difference that sounds very small to me. If we have urban heat islands of multiple degrees and people worry about small increases in the urban heat island effect, then taking a station (mostly) out of the heat island should lead to a strong cooling. Furthermore, cities are often in valleys and coasts and the later build airports thus often at a higher and thus cooler location.<br /><br />If the difference you find is still 0.1°C, then I wonder whether the fraction of stations that are currently at airports is a larger percentage of the pre-1940 stations than I would guess.<br /><br />With some colleagues we have started the Parallel Observations Science Team (POST) in the International Surface Temperature Initiative. There are some people interested in using parallel measurements (simultaneous measurements at cities and airports) to study the influence of these relocations. There seems to be more data as one may think. We are, however, still looking for a leading author (just in case any is reading this comment).Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65600045816090267762015-03-29T10:57:44.265+11:002015-03-29T10:57:44.265+11:00Actually, there have been a number of comments on ...Actually, there have been a number of comments on the thread critical of Goddard for the unreasonableness of the scope of his request. A sample:<br /><br /><i> ... what bugs me in Goddard is exactly this kind of whistleblowing. It is like if he swallowed the whistle and could not stop breathing through it.</i><br /><br />Which was in response to me having just thrown Grijalva under the bus for what I described as a stupid and potentially harmful political stunt to all publicly-funded research in the US.<br /><br />dbstealey is towing the party line, others have pushed back on him. It's a very interesting thread.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24930736063363623512015-03-29T10:34:54.940+11:002015-03-29T10:34:54.940+11:00Actually, it would be interesting to drill further...Actually, it would be interesting to drill further down into the station history data and identify all stations (or at least as many as possible) that were moved sometime during their history and exclude them from the raw data processing.<br /><br /><br />Processing just the "non-airport" stations (as I did) is just a crude first-cut attempt using the limited metadata that is supplied with the monthly GHCN data. <br /> <br />There are probably quite a few "at airport" stations that started their lives at airports and were never moved. My "first cut" processing excludes those stations (for a full "raw data from stations that were never moved" vs. NASA comparison, we'd want to include those "at airport" stations). <br /><br />Other formerly-urban stations were also moved out to sewage/water-treatment plants (but those aren't captured in the GHCN-monthly metadata file). We'd want to identify those stations and exclude them from the raw data processing.<br /><br />The temperature algorithm I use is pretty crude -- 20deg x 20deg grid cells at the Equator, with grid-cell longitude-dimension adjustments to keep the grid-cell areas as uniform as possible as you go N/S from the Equator, with no interpolation to empty cells. Big grid-cells is a "quick and dirty" alternative to using smaller grid-cells with interpolation. The approach gives you pretty good global-average results, but the area-weighting is too coarse to give you really good average results for limited-size regions.<br /><br />To take this from "amateur blog science" to something that would be submitted to a journal, we'd want to do the following:<br /><br />1) Replace my "quick and dirty" area-weighted averaging procedure with the full-up NASA reference-station algorithm.<br /><br />2) Drill down further into the station history info and identify all (or as many as possible) of the stations that have never been moved.<br /><br />Run all of the raw "never been moved" stations through the NASA algorithm and then compare the raw data results with the NASA "meteorological stations" temperature index.<br /><br />My guess is that we would see an even closer match between the raw data results and the official NASA results.<br /><br />We'd probably also want to look at the geographical distribution of "never been moved" stations vs. the geographical distribution of the full GHCN station collection see what, if any, "geographical distribution bias" there is in the "never been moved" station set.<br /> <br />The results I have right now aren't really "professional grade" enough for publication (I'm very much an amateur at this), but they do indicate that further effort in this area might be worth considering. <br /><br />And just an additional note to folks reading this. The fact that the NASA global-average land-temperature results can be reproduced so closely with such a simple processing algorithm is a testament to the robustness of the NASA results. The warming signal in the global temperature data is so strong that it practically "jumps out at you" with even the simplest processing.caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35915002699897524022015-03-29T10:22:26.640+11:002015-03-29T10:22:26.640+11:00The point this that, as Sou mentioned, they seem m...The point this that, as Sou mentioned, they seem more interested in getting the crowd riled up. Even if the crowd comments are far afield from the the initial issue, or misunderstand it completely, there is no effort to correct the criticisms. They allow "Ain't it awful" to develop as a meme which then will have lasting presence in the conversation.<br /><br />It is similar with Richard Tol's criticism of Cook's paper. He never says there is no consensus, only that it is somewhat less than reported, and then quibbles with the statistical methods. But at the same time he makes no efforts to correct the comments (or headlines) on skeptic blogs which misrepresent his critique and insist that there is no consensus at all. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36486113841738937102015-03-29T08:23:07.837+11:002015-03-29T08:23:07.837+11:00did they specifically complain about the time it w...did they specifically complain about the time it would take though?markusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8606949887976769712015-03-29T08:03:20.049+11:002015-03-29T08:03:20.049+11:00tonyb:
Let's, for the sake of discussion, ass...tonyb:<br /><br />Let's, for the sake of discussion, assume someone did what you want. They sat down and explained exactly why the temperature records in location X end up the way they do after adjustment/homogenization/whatever.<br /><br />I'm sure you're a very reasonable person. But what do you think the general reaction would be from your colleagues at WUWT:<br /><br />(a) OK, thanks. That makes sense. <br />(b) Look over here! This *other* temperature record has been doctored! Explain that!<br /><br />It's not just that no matter how many hoops you jump through there's always another hoop. It's that there's not even an acknowledgment that the previous hoop existed and you obligingly jumped through it. I have spend endless hours on another blog elsewhere doing what you ask -- patiently working with a self-professed "skeptic" and addressing one problem after another. Somehow new objections always appear to take the place of the debunked ones.Ned Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74960120003214479382015-03-29T06:21:32.317+11:002015-03-29T06:21:32.317+11:00It is only a month ago that they complained about ...It is only a month ago that they complained about an information request for their 7 friends from Democrat Raul M. Grijalva. Now they cheer at an even more intrusive FOIA request, that will keep many scientists from doing their important work. Curious, amazing and hypocritical does not start describing this.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26424782991193835142015-03-29T06:03:24.603+11:002015-03-29T06:03:24.603+11:00It is curious how neither of the original posters ...It is curious how neither of the original posters cared to correct commenters who thought it was just a request for simple temperature records. It sounds like dog whistle training. Now all they need to say is NOAA FOIA to get a response.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90896989567805102422015-03-29T05:37:51.550+11:002015-03-29T05:37:51.550+11:00In which tonyb says that the instrumental records ...In which tonyb says that the instrumental records are borked - but of course it's just incompetence not conspiracy:<br /><br /><i>I am not a conspiracy theorist nor believe anything nefarious is happening with the temperature data. Whether I agree with the algorithms and smoothing involved to get the end results is another matter. </i><br /><br />Same net result though: tonyb thinks the GAT data are wrong. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35119732414565978332015-03-29T05:30:34.508+11:002015-03-29T05:30:34.508+11:00I know the current reasoning, but how the problem ...I know the current reasoning, but how the problem was seen 145 years ago is interesting. Unfortunately the tax payer was not seen as willing to pay for such history of science studies up to now. I hope WUWT will crowd fund such as study. Then something positive would come out of this harassment of scientists to punish them for their politically inconvenient results.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75646818106207459022015-03-29T04:59:18.666+11:002015-03-29T04:59:18.666+11:00"Plus they want other communications going ba..."Plus they want other communications going back up to 145 years, and at least 45 years, regarding the:<br />rationale, ~ methodology, ~ and other issues "<br /><br />From my own researches I know all that stuff, from the rational behind the reasoning, to the methods employed, are already plenty available. Just needs some good faith curiosity and a desire to learn - rather than defending a cause.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.com