I agree with you that interpretation of the finding of the error is in some ways overblown, but the real point is that there ARE systemic problems with the data; the scientists don't know "nothing" but are far more confident than their data would objectively suggest they should be; peer-review is much less than it is represented as, at least as regards the upper levels of climate science; and widespread refusal of prominent climate scientists to make their data and methods open for review of reproducibility is allowing errors such as the GISS one to continue undetected for absurdly long periods of time...and then there's the widespread reference-kiting.
You undoubtedly will receive a lot of abuse here, but as for me, thank you...even if I disagree on a lot of points.
I can't remember where I read it, but there are many examples in the history of science where a recognized "great mind" really did have insight into breakthrough knowledge, but the data available didn't always agree with what he or she knew had to be the nature of nature. Sometimes this knowledge resulted in "adjustments" to the data by the "great mind". (Sometimes it turned out later that the adjustments made ad hoc were found to be due to an instrumental or bias error not immediately perceptible; the "great mind" knew that this must be the case but couldn't prove it at the time, but the adjustments made to prove the point (or publish the paper) turned out to be exactly what was required).
Two sort-of like this examples: Gregor Mendel and Einstein's cosmological constant.
Which gets back to what I quoted. That confidence comes from knowledge, not just data. Sometimes such confidence is misplaced. But I respect the minds of those who are investigating the way the world's climate works.
Once upon a time, way back when, I was a professional Metrologist.
NOT a Meteorologist, a Metrologist.
My profession was measurement standards and their applications.
When I read stories about thermometers being placed in parking lots, next to buildings and other obviously poor locations, I am forced to ask “Is any one paying attention”?
These are fundamental and substantial issues and are at the core of this debate.
If I cannot trust these “scientists” to simply place the instrumentation in a proper environment, how can I possibly be expected to respect their conclusions?
The point about the algorithm used to “normalize” the data is also highly suspect.
Does anyone remember the term G I G O?
Without reproducible and verified standards that are open to review and inspection, I will continue to look at human caused global warming as nothing more than a religion.
I deal in facts.
Opinions are for the Editorial page. Cheers,
knewshound
http://www.knewshound.blogspot.com/