Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (74437)	1/25/2017 2:43:46 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

If it's thought of, then it doesn't belong in that set I didn't ask for a specific adjustment. I was asking about what type of an adjustment could be omitted. I can't think of any. most people studying the issue of climate change are biased to see climate change There is no bias about seeing climate change. There certainly is bias (differing opinions) about the reasons for the change and the magnitude. I doubt that there is any significant bias in the temperature adjustments. The adjustments are automated and the code is available for anyone to review. Certainly the code has been examined by many skeptics and so far no one has demonstrated any bias. The Berkeley Earth program was started by physicist Richard Muller (once a darling of the denialists) because he believed that the temperature adjustments by National Climate Data Center may have been biased. He even received initial funding by the Koch brothers. Based on his work, which confirms the NCDC results, he is no longer a skeptic. I infer from "I'm not (in this conversation) challenging the specific adjustments that have been made" that you may be challenging some specific adjustments. If so, what are they? If there was any sort of attempt to "cook the books" why would pre 1940s sea surface temps be adjusted upward resulting in a lower rate of warming?