I did link the site...  I'll try to remember that you can't remember your posts either.

This is the fallacy in the argument.  The adjustments are made because of station inaccuracies.  I'm sure there has to be something besides shade that would cause one to report cold, but all other environmental changes would do the opposite.  It's a white box, being shaded for an extra hour in the morning isn't going to be terribly effective at cooling a white box three feet above blacktop.

Heat sources are common problems verified to be altering the temperatures on 90% of the stations in the US.  Class 4, artificial heat sources within ten meters, with an error of 2-5 degrees celsius, comprises 61% of the nearly complete survey at the surface station project.  Even if every class 1, 2 and 3 were negative, it would still not equal out the minimum possible effect, and we haven't even included class 4 yet.

The response from the people monitoring the temperature was that those problems are accounted for and properly adjusted.  This cannot be true if the modifications are balanced in proportion, the errors are overwhelmingly positive and admittedly so.  Another claim is that only the good stations are used and thus errors are minor, yet the good stations results match the total, and, as good stations, don't have any shade to make up for.  The debunkers are either liars, ignorant, or incompetent, and the same is true of the scientists making those adjustments.  I'm almost cynical enough to think they all got Phd's while being blithering idiots, but it's a little hard to swallow.

The only thing I could possibly do at this point to make it more obvious that the surface station temperatures are intentionally tampered with somewhere along the way, is to spend a few thousand hours checking each individual station personally.  As this idiocy will blow over before anything dangerous and irreversible is done, I'm not even remotely interested in the effort just to be right on the internet.

I'm not going to bother replying to the individual sources of misinformation you've posted, but I will ask one question.  When you invalidate the accuracy of information, how is a reference to that information, showing that it matches itself, in any way proof of validity?  I've seen this far too many times now, the graph you show for instance is sourced from the adjusted data.  They go find the information being called into question and say "look, it matches itself over here too!" as if that means something.  But then, you're linking to it as evidence, so perhaps I'm the only one not missing something.

I feel an impending comment on my ego from a certain someone...

Pollution: 16 naval ships = all the cars in the world!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

This is why I am skeptical of green activists.  It seems when it comes to saving the earth they completely missed the boat.  If I ran the movement I would stick to realistic goals and concentrating on battles easily won with maximum benefit than radical totaltarian ideals like changing world economies and one world global society.  Something with the movement smells like exhaust.  In theroy it should not be even remotely so politically polarized but the most extreme methods chosen to call upon have done so.  If anyone here disagrees then first ask yourself whether it would be more realistic to rectify 16 ships or force every car in the world to be scrapped.

First, those aren't naval vessels, they are commercial freighters. Hell, most aircraft carriers are well under 80k tons and 900 feet in length, and the (American, who else?) exceptions are all nuclear powered. In comparison, the freighters being discussed are all 170k tons and 1400 feet long, compared to a Nimitz class carrier of 101k tons and 1100 feet long.

Second, the point of the article is not that 16 freighters put out as much carbon as all the autos in the world, it's that they put out as much SULFUR, which is highly regulated on land. The bunker fuel they burn can contain up to 2000 times the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline, fuel oil, or anything else burned on land. Basically, the acid rain legislation in the developed world never found it's way to sea - and even if it did, most of those freighters are registered in third-world contries specifically to evade the developed world's environmental, safety, and wage laws.

[edit]Me and my damn slow fact-checking. I just *had* to have comparison numbers to put in, didn't I?

So I'm searching for anything new about climategate but there's really not much new going on. There is a report that it was the Chinese that may have done the hacking but other than that, things are relatively silent.

So I search for ‘climategate news’ and I find the http://climategatenews.com/ website. I click on the link and get the following.

How prophetic. “Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”

If that doesn’t sum up the entirety of the climategate nontroversy then I don’t know what does.

For the umpteenth time. thirty years ago we were *not* all equally convinced that the Earth was entering a new ice age. There was a minor buzz about it that was picked up as sensationalist news, it did not have any great following among regular folks and had absolutely no support in the scientific community.

I suppose I should keep all these frequently regurgited bullshit denial articles on a Rolodex for easier debunking. The quick and easy reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling.

As far as Michael Crichton I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching an hour and a half video or reading through the 45 pages of the link that you provided. His book State of Fear has been thoroughly debunked numerable times, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/ is just one such debunking.

Basically he was a nut case. He did graduate from Harvard Med School but thankfully never actually practiced medicine since he believed that "all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind." He also wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us." Eventually he came to believe in auras, spoon bending, and clairvoyance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

The wonderful thing about skepticism, at least as embodied in contemporary American Conservative narratives, is that it has absolutely no self-awareness.  You've recycled the same tried and true tactics for decades across the board, but you actually get offended when we point that out (Tobacco *is* Bad, news at 11)

Please peruse the following article -

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp?MR=1

The good old Ozone layer "debate."  Remember that one?  The one where all the scientists had a peer-reviewed consensus that CFCs depleted the ozone layer, and yet it just didn't feel truthy to the people who manufactured CFCs?  Oh yah, and Republicans were skeptical too, coincidentally. 

Notice any similarities in the way debate was manufactured then and now? 

My favorite passage:

"In 1995, the year Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of the CFC-ozone depletion link, the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment began a series of hearings to revisit the issue of ozone depletion, where the issue of peer-review was brought up. During the hearings, Representative John Doolittle, a California Republican, stated, "My own belief, is that the question is still very much open to debate...Theories or speculation about this are not sufficient. We need science, not pseudo-science."

Doolittle was challenged by Lynn Rivers, a Michigan Democrat. They had the following interchange, taken from the Congressional Report, "Hearing on Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 -- Stratospheric Ozone: Myth and Realities", 104th Congress, 1st session, September 20, 1995, Report no. 31 (Gelbspan, 1998):

RIVERS: "Have you found in peer-reviewed articles or in the broader scientific discourse that people are saying this is not really a problem?"

DOOLITTLE: "I have found that there is no established consensus as what actually is the problem. I found extremely misleading representations by the government and government officials that are not founded on sound science."

RIVERS: "...[W]hat I was asking about is peer-reviewed articles [by] scientists who are...doing this work on a regular basis. Can you give me an example of some peer-reviewed publications that you consulted in formulating your opinion that there's no [sound] science?

DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer."

RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."

DOOLITTLE: "[I]'m not going to get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of peer-reviewed documents. There's a politics within the scientific community, where they're all too intimidated to speak out once someone has staked out a position...And under this Congress, we're going to get to the truth and not just the academic politics."

RIVERS: "[T]he general way to feel certain that you're getting good science is that you put your ideas out in a straightforward way in a peer-reviewed publication and you allow others who are doing the same work to make comments, to criticize, to replicate your findings. And what I'm asking you, in your search for good science, is what peer-reviewed documentation did you use to come up with your decision? What good science did you rely on?"

DOOLITTLE: "My response to you is, it is the proponents of the ban that have the burden of producing the good science. I do not have that burden."

The denialists were perfectly in synch with their current strategy back then, right up until "Oops!  Giant hole above Antarctica!  No one saw that one coming..."  Did I mention the hole was much *worse* than predicted by scientific models?  Yah...Did anyone peep up to publicly say they'd reviewed the evidence and reversed their initial skepticism?  Hmmmm, doesn't seem like it...

Here's a simple question for you - when have the skeptics, when faced with a clear consensus from the scientific community based on peer-reviewed and published articles,

EVER

been right? 

Pretty simple, wouldn't you agree?  I'm sure you can come up with at least one or two examples, no?  Because I can think of at least 50 where the skeptics were wrong, on any scale you'd like to imagine.  I guess that's my liberal "reality-based" bias kicking in...

Here's another one - how does it feel to be a part of a narrative that is so consistently wrong that you can't even admit it's a pattern? 

"DDT - Oops!  Smoking - Oops!  Ozone layer - Oops!  AGW - now this time is different, I swear!  I'll swear to that right up until the evidence is so overwhelmingly awful that I have to back down, which I will do as if I never opposed it in the first place...Wait a minute...you are comparing the issues now to the issues 10 or 40 years ago?  No fair!  How obnoxious!"

Disclaimer:  I'm talking about the narrative, not the individual.  You, as a person, might agree that DDT is bad for birds, that tobacco had a causal link to cancer, but 50 years ago your narrative never would have admitted that, and if you were a good little soldier you would have toed the party line without questions.  The issues have changed, but looking over the thread it really doesn't look like much else has... 

How sad.

... I think I'm going to go have a smoke.

Why yes, there is.  See the CRN site information handbook for placement requirements, not quite sure where you'd go to find the official place of specification for equipment types, but the instrumentation and construction is standardized as well and easy to find information on. 

Did you actually read that, or are you lost on the whole AGW versus GW bit?  Either way, foot in mouth, separate them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley&oldid=315690726

However it seems that the talk pages that ultimately decide the content of any particular article is subject to pretty much the same crap that goes on here only potentially more so.

Also the above article contains a lot of information and is probably not all that worthwhile of a read unless you really want to read through the whole thing.

The short story as I read it was that Connolley and Abd got into some kind of edit war on the Cold Fusion article. From my reading of the various statements from a number of other users and administrators this Abd is first and foremost a total asshole and also what is referred to as a Wiki Lawyer.

Just to make a comparison, psychoak occasionally refers to himself as an asshole and while I often find myself agreeing with that assessment there is no doubt that psychoak provides relevant content to the discussion. He very often does not explain his points all that well and often requires his opponents to do a fair amount of work trying to figure out precisely what his point is but there always is at least some kind of relevant point there (even though I usually don't agree with said point). However in Abd's case it appears that he often produces "walls of text" totally unrelated to the content of the article and for the sole purpose of interfereing with the discussion.

As a result of the arbitration case Abd was: prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, banned from the cold fusion article for one year, banned from Wikipedia for 3 months, admonished for many types of bad behaviour, and, required to identify a mentor to approve his editing activities once the 3 month ban ends.

As a result of the arbitration case Connolley's administrative privileges were revoked, although he may apply to have them reinstated at any time, and was admonished not to edit war.

A couple things to note is that none of this had anything to do with any global warming related topic and the criticism of Connolley was simply that he was a bit heavy handed with someone that was being an obvious asshole which although understandable is not without consequences.

Like I said the overall handling of this tended to make me trust Wikipedia more rather than less but everyone should make their own judgement.

hmmm???! Read what? Not sure what you mean.  You may have chewed a few of your own.

What is this? Drivel! Has Schulz identified himself as part of the Connolley crowd through his position in the discussion.  Somehow it seems so.  Wikipedia is open to manipulation, and well aware of it.

Regarding ISO lots of GW, climate change stuff, but apparently no surface weather station standard. Thanks for the CRN acronym psychoak.  CRN is Climate Reference Network a US project to gather high quality weather data. 

Mumbles, you're such a softy.

He's a self proclaimed skeptic and still is, he agrees that the Earth has warmed to the degree the proponents of AGW claim, he disagrees that there is any proof it's by anthropogenic causes.  That would mean he's still a skeptic.  That particular article exists because some ass tard somewhere on the internets took him out of context as being in denial that the Earth has warmed, something similar to my position.

There is no change of position, he still doesn't buy the AGW theory, he still thinks it's gotten warmer.  Unless, at some point, he supported the AGW theory, there isn't any change in his view on AGW.  This being true would mean he's a former supporter that turned skeptic, the opposit of your posit.