CO2 smashing extreme weather records

Originally posted by mjp2: ↑

You make a lot of assertions there, Unitrader, and if you look objectively at what you wrote, you support those assertions with no evidence other than an appeal to your own authority.

And you exhibit both false statement and inconsistent argument. Plus apparent emotive bias. So I suggest you'd not get this particular post I reply to past any peer review.

False and inconsistent argument?

Contrary to your claim, measurements of urban environments are in fact corrected for urban heat island effect by reference to nearby rural sites. And there is much analysis and papers on the techniques used and the identified impact of urban heat island effect. Your assertion is simply back to front.

And your subsequent argument that data is being "sliced and diced" (you claim, hence negating the validity of that data), is also a false and emotively presented statement. So, for example, you can't on the one hand (falsely) claim that urban heat island effect is not corrected for and then complain about the corrections made. There is the inconsistent argument. And you make no cogent argument against the validity of that urban heat island effect and other adjustments made to correct the data.

I think there is valid need to assess the techniques used to make data corrections; for urban heat island effect, for instrument and site changes, for changes in measurement approach for sea based measurement, for satellite orbital decay; and for many other impacts. But those processes are well documented in the science and your arguments do not provide any evidence or argument against the techniques used.

People bring mistaken argument to these forums with unrecognised bias. I think I've just pointed to you doing just that.

I don't rely on my own "credentials" as you put it. I reference and communicate what is evidenced by the science. It's fine to argue any flaw in the science, but not by simply saying your own credentials justify an opinion.

Expand

Mjp2, when I say the data is sliced and diced I am sayingyou cannot trust what follows. But just recently the BOM showed its truecolours by changing the data point in both Automatic Weather Stations atGoulburn and Thredbo. Now this is reported around the 4 min mark of thevideo. However small the changes, it has big consequences for the presentationof this data as clean. As a researcher how comfortable would you present your analysis with datasets like this?

At first they said one thing then they blamed itdown to the limits placed in the automated equipment but as the lady says onthe video this isn’t so. Then they said it was faulty equipment - itwasn't. If over the next few weeks of letters and other representations,the stories changed from the BOM as to why they limit the coldest records beingrecorded, have they not further eroded trust in the AGW process.

The BOM has since said there are other Weather Stations with limits onrecording record low temperatures. Now could we possibly get apublic inquiry as the lady suggests, into this institution's (Bureau ofMeteorology) behaviour.

It is my opinion and perhaps most who do not accept the AGW hypothesis thatthis data set tampering goes on far too easily and in most developedcountries. So where do you see yourself position on the safety andsecurity of this Australian institutions' dataset?

Video starts getting interesting around 3 min mark.