Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo
It is actually NOAA, not NOAH. NOAH built the Ark, but I digress.
Yes, some of the surface observations are "cooked" a bit to try to account for urbanization and perhaps changes in instruments/location. Surface observations are not the most reliable data if you have to "cook" it. I wonder about whether the amount of "cooking" is of the same magnitude as the warming signal that is being looked for.
One of the "problems" with the way science is funded is that research proposals are peer reviewed. In other words, they are reviewed by people doing the same research as you. Papers are also peer reviewed for publication.
|
Sorry about the NOAH...had religion on my mind when I posted. My bad.
Peer review, as you are aware, occurs through the publication of scientific works in well-known Scientific Journals. The problem with theories and data that oppose the AGW theory, i.e., Man-Made Global Warming, is that those "vaunted" peer-reviewed publications, for whatever reason, have for years categorically refused to publish those submissions, regardless of their validity. As a result, top scientists have been shunned, fired and black-listed. There's too much money and too many government jobs at stake. Only recently, as the theory collapses under the preponderance of
actual data and observation, has the fraud been exposed for what it is.
BTW, the rain is starting and Noah is loading the boat...