Heru-ur

Yes, an investigation is necessary, as I said above. I do not know what that code means. Negative multipliers would make negative temperatures if applied directly to the temperatures as I think you are implying. Perhaps they are applied to some correction factor that in then added in? I think that this needs a proper, careful investigation.

PS: Why do scientists tell us that CO2 rises have always followed warming trends, yet you now believe CO2 is driving warming.

You are kidding, right? You should know this if you want to have any credibility. This is the most fundamental of many possible mechanisms that lead to positive feedback when CO2 or other constituents are added to the atmosphere. So, add some CO2; this produces some warming. This warming causes the release of more CO2, and so on. Thus there is a multiplying factor on CO2 release. The neat thing is that you do not have to believe the models alone that show that higher temperatures cause the release of CO2. There are examples right there in the temperature record.

—Mike Sulzer

Others around the world seem to have far less trouble than you of seeing what that code means. It makes the values of the warmish 1930s lower and then artificially adds an ever higher value to each succeeding decade. And you can not figure that out???

As to CO2; there are many factors in the greenhouse effect other than CO2. That and it has been shown that you get an ever diminishing effect back as the concentration of CO2 levels increase. It is not a linear function. (but you knew that already, eh?) Yes, the warming from CO2 is logarithmic and not linear. Based on the Beer-Lambert law, it will take twice as much CO2 to produce the same amount of warming that the previous amount of CO2 caused. If, for example, 100 ppm CO2 emissions causes .5 C warming, it will take 200 ppm to cause the next .5 C warming, 400 ppm the next, 800 the next, and so on.

I am surprised, Mike, that you pull that old canard out of your bag of tricks of totally ignoring Beer's law. Unless you were drinking it instead of understanding it that is. :)

Perhaps. But there are plenty of scientists out there right now having a fit over this scandal. Are the all turkeys also?

It is too late to pretend that you are just a skeptic. —Mike Sulzer

I do not understand you. You claim you can look at that array and see no problem and yet call me a denier. Man o' man.

I am skeptical of any "data" that is hidden and kept secret. Same with code. Same with methodology.

I am skeptical that trees make good thermometers. We know from the "hide the divergence" episode that the trees don't give real temps after the time when satellite data and decent modern ground records are available. If trees can not give you the temp in modern times (after 1960) when we can check on them; why do you think they would do any better 100 years earlier when we can not check on them? Or a 1000 years earlier?

Why did the so-called scientists hide all data, code, and methodology for so long? (until a whistle blower released the data)

Why does the New Zealand "adjusted official data" show great warming in the 20th century while the same official raw data show none at all. In other words, all warming in New Zealand is from "adjusting" the temperatures. Why the adjustments?

No Mike, you are denying all the problems with the scare mongering stories that are being use to stampede governments into making horrible policy based on unsupported fantasies.

I say "unsupported fantasies" because the only data and code to see the light of day shows the opposite from what we were told. Why would I trust the other data? Why do you? Why are you denying the problems?

All data, code, and methods in this matter should be reviewed by an independent, public, transparent body which could tell us the truth about what we know now.

And Mike; those of us who are skeptics have every right to speculate. There is nothing wrong with public speculations. It is when unsupported speculation is passed off as "settled science" that things go very wrong.

In fact, new problems come in every day now. Take a look at the most recent discovery by clicking on my sig. And yes, that troublesome statistician is at it again. (thank Horus!)

.

.

.

.

PS: Why do scientists tell us that CO2 rises have always followed warming trends, yet you now believe CO2 is driving warming. And why only CO2? I am skeptical that CO2 can do it anyway. Please convince me otherwise.