Just move those temperature monitors closer to air conditioner exhaust fans. That will get rid of any “controversy”.
As a mathematician myself, I can confirm this would be a major flaw. Time Series Analysis 101 would tell you the importance of checking the order of integration of your data. For data following an additive random walk (i.e. tomorrow = today + some change), you have to difference the data.
Budget tricks helped Obama save programs from cuts (spending cuts exaggerated)
Obamacare Health Benefits Exchanges Are Flailing and Failing
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Always follow the money/power trail. That will lead you to the true motivation.
ping
'How Scientific Is Climate Science?'
How Scientific? Easy -- less than 0, that's 'how Scientific' it is.
'Climate Science' is to Science as ... Tarot Card Reading is to Auto Repair.
Outstanding article and great analysis.
Very clear examples for non-mathematicians.
This kind of analysis is missing from the debate.
Awesome.
The hypothesis must fit the data, not the other way around.
When the anthropogenic warmists can explain why, a mere 125K years ago (well before significant human civilization, much less SUVs) during the last interglacial period, the Earth warmed sufficiently to raise sea levels 15-18 FEET (as compared to the 2-3 inches the warmists are decrying as the end of civilization), then they can talk to me about any warming trend in this particular interglacial period.
Based on geologic data, we are actually overdue for the next glacial period. Maybe CO2 is keeping us out of the cold!!
If global warming exists, it is demonstrated by extremely subtle changes to very large data sets that are handled by a very large number of people. These people, by and large, accept the premise of global warming and have a stake in having the data support their premise.
If even one in a hundred of the people who gather this data intentionally shades his reporting to support the conclusion, that would be enough to create a discernable trend and provide "proof" of global warming. Even more sinister, if a larger number of people unintentionally over-reported because they observe things in a biased way, this would also support the preconceived conclusion.
A lot of environmentalists who collect this data see this as a fight to save the planet. They see it as a battle between good (themselves) and evil (the energy companies, the deniers, the the polluters, etc). To conclude that this large number of people will observe and report data without introducing bias is simply not credible.
I remember, back in the '80s, sitting around with a bunch of lefty environmentalists back in Berkeley, California. We all knew, down in our bones, that the US consumed too much energy and was responsible for global pollution. We all knew that consumption in the US had to be curtailed and that the US would have to be made to pay for their over-consumption of global resources. What we did not know was the mechanism by which we would bring this about.
Then the concept of global warming came along. It fit our template exactly. It achieved everything we wanted to achieve and provided the lever we would need to move the World.
I can simply not believe that, in that situation, everybody at every level was reporting and analysing accurately. It was a contest to see which side could introduce bias more effectively, IMHO. Since the environmentalists provided most of the boots on the ground, they prevailed.
bttt