...
and please tell us why including more land stations makes it better, the American Stations are supposed to be the “gold standard” and have to be “adjusted” so now we add in more stations of inconclusive provonence to tack on to proxies that for some reason are GREAT till about 1960 or so and then go all wobbly..
Sorry as Computer Sys. Guy... GIGO is the word for most studies relying on adjusted data.
First, I agree he is not a climate skeptic(in the sense that we are) but he has been pretty critical of scientists trying to prove AGW (the hockey stick nonsense for example) by falsehoods. I imagine that is why the Koch foundation saw fit to fund his study.
Regarding your questioning the science, i dont actually see an argument.
First ARGO has a very short time series indeed (10 years) with gradually increasing resolution (as more floats were added) so it is rather insufficient to say anything about mean temperatures from that data set yet. So why on earth are you stuck onto ARGO?
Also what on earth do you mean “adjusted”? Can I have a reference about this “adjustment”. Besides, every study does not (and cannot) have to show everything. This study focuses on trying to resolve a long-standing question about biases in urban land stations vs rural ones.
Personally, I have no problems believing that temperatures can rise, the problem is with this AGW stuff which is a clear jumping-the-gun scenario.