“From a guy that doesn’t know degrees from radians. Next.”
Eyes Wide Shut. This close-minded dismissiveness even of peer-reviewed work that is not part of the ‘consensus’ is common from the ‘community’ of AGW alarmists, I’ve noticed this attitude on e.g., climatescience.org.
maybe it’s par for the course on FR to reach for ad hominem without addressing the point, but it’s irksome, unwarranted, and unscientific.
If warming trends correlate to sociological non-climate factors, it puts into question whether adjustments are being properly done.
McKitrick
Scroll down to "McKitrick Screws Up Yet Again"
"As I noted in my post, correcting the error halves the size of the economic signal in the warming trend, reducing it from 0.16 (out of 0.27) to 0.09. ... Well, all the conclusion says is that there were socioeconomic effects, without mentioning their size. The size of the effects, which change substantially, are only mentioned in the body. And the “bombshell” nature of the paper touted by Michaels et al in their TCS article depends on socioeconomic effects being the primary cause of the warming trend, something that McKitrick has now retracted."
Moving on... I'll ask you the same question that I asked kidd above (he replied that he had no idea). Do you think that the problems with surface station data are significant enough to eliminate the (stated) observed warming of 0.6 C in the 20th century and 0.4 C since the 1980s? I have some ideas I want to put down, but it will take longer than a day; your response to this question will guide my thoughts.
“I’ve noticed this attitude on e.g., climatescience.org”
Sorry I meant to say RealClimate blog, which has a hostile, politicized and patronizing attitude towards anyone/anything that doesn’t align with the PC ‘consensus’.
Climate science blog, i.e.,
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ is its own interesting site.
Their latest article is on cloud cover feedback.