New temp revisions continue to cool past and warm present.....thoughts?

[skierinvermont]

Let's compare two recent publications regarding the validity of the GISS temperature record - the BEST project reports and the article LEK linked to. Interestingly they come to opposite conclusions.

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review. Oh, yeah, the BEST team found that the GISS temperature record is robust and accurate.

The other, the one LEK linked to, is an anonymous column in an conservative advocacy blog accusing NOAA/NCDC of repeatedly tampering with the temperature record. The supporting data and methodology used by the writer are conspicuously absent. The column isn't peer-reviewed science, it won't ever be peer-reviewed science, and it doesn't even link to any peer-reviewed science. There is nothing but lies and repeatedly debunked denialist nonsense - really a rather pathetic attempt to spread doubt on the long-term temperature record, and on the NOAA scientists, because if the temperature record is flaky and the scientists are crooked then there's no need to worry about AGW, right?

An honest skeptic, if he ever stumbled upon the C3 Headlines blog, would only need a quick glance to realize there is no substance there, it's all garbage. So, which assessment of the temperature record does LEK endorse? No surprise, he likes the second one. The column claims to confirm his biases so it must be true.

LEK, that blog is serving up crap and telling readers it's fudge. It's fine if you want to gobble it up and ask for more, but what was your motive for posting the link to it here? Did you really think you would change anyone's mind with that nonsense?

Well said. The adjustments are made to fix flaws and the methodology is completely public and subject to scrutiny of ANYBODY that can find anything wrong with it. Nobody can, but deniers will object to the corrections anyways because they prefer anything that shows less warming regardless of justification.