Wow people are getting my main argument more and more..
New Research Suggests Some Climate Data May Be Tainted
Oh it's tainted alright... Much of it doesn't even follow the axioms of Statistical Mathematics... Much of it also outright rejects Science.
Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.”
First, Mr. Gore needs to define the term "climate change". Remember, circular definitions are not allowed...
But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.
Correct. Science is never "settled". Science is, simply put, a set of falsifiable theories.
And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data.
Correct. I'd say "missing data" occurs much more often than "shaky data", but correct.
Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect.
Correct. Thermometers need to be uniformly spread out and simultaneously read by the same observer (to remove location and time biases), since temps have been regularly observed to vary by 20degF/mile and have been recorded to vary by as much as 49degF within a two minute time frame. We are not doing this, and even if we were, we don't have near enough thermometers to come up with an accurate result, since the margin of error is too high (due in part to the high temperature variance).
Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.
Yup. Now, keep in mind that this is only relating to those specific locations at specific points in time. It is not at all relating to the temperature of the Earth.
And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.
Good observation! This also skews data, especially when comparing historic to present...
A
study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators
here.
That wouldn't surprise me. Also, 1221 weather stations is nowhere NEAR enough stations to even begin a statistical analysis of Earth's temperature. Since the declared variances (listed above) are as high as they are, we would need upwards of 200 MILLION stations (uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to even begin such analysis.
To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem.
In other words, they are cooking the data, thus rendering it useless for statistical analysis. RAW data is required. Notice the NUMEROUS math errors that are being ignored by these "climate" "scientists"??
Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
Thus fitting in with the religious dogma...
See how that works?
More at Wikipedia 
