And, to be clear, my derision is for the the article and the people that crow about it, not for the researchers. I'm going to try and look up the original article to see what they have to say. The news article uses almost nothing from the originating article. If the researchers can put together a compelling case of systematic bias in the measurement sample, I'm sure it will make for a great journal article.
Judah On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > "His study, which has not been peer reviewed"... > > Cherry picking individual data points, ignoring the fact that there > are multiple data recording sites for virtually every grid on the > planet... > > Hey, some sites used to be quiet and rural and are now surrounded by > buildings and development! That doesn't typify what's happening to our > planet...oh wait. > > We only accept data from sites that are invariant and invariant means > that nothing can change and therefore you can't measure change from > anything and so nothing is changing and, well, you know... > > What fucking trash. > > Judah > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> World may not be warming after all: >> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312095 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
