Hi Blacknad,
I thought you would make the comment you made. The studies were not anti global warming per se but they did challenge at least some aspect of it. It could have been the wording. It could well be that they were in 1993, 1994 etc when it was much easier to hold a contrary view.
Currently, in 2006, it is extremely difficult to obtain publication of a study that contradicts a basic tenant of global warming. I cannot quote statistics because this is anecdotal.
I didn't get the five stars because I abuse people!! Now I'll probably get rated really low just because I've mentioned it. Sigh.
The tone of many of these discussions is poor. Blacknad, as a moderator on a site for some time, I'll repeate what I used to say to those that were producing whitiscms etc only to have people take terrible offence. There is no body language on a forum, no non verbal language at all (except for emoticons that are not used much - we can be grateful for small mercies).
I believe that we can all disagree substantively and get along fine but some personal attacks that have happened lately have really put some of these arguments close to the gutter. Anything that raises the tone is appreciated.
As to you rider "as far as I can tell", sorry, not good enough if someone decided to take offence and sue. Firstly you would be up for costs as would the site. Something I also had to deal with as moderator before but I am well qualified in this area, I just won't mention it, in the spirit of not wishing to look to be attempting to be superior to others on this site. I did mention my qualifications once in response to a specific question from Daniel but no one knows if I am lying through my teeth. I guess my posts might indicate something, right now, that I am a very unhappy bunny about my study and wish that my results were different than they are because I just know that no one will accept them.
I am now trying to see if I can get an assistant to do a tangental study an an attempt to quantify the deviations inherent in the GHCN data sets. More funding needed! Maybe that oil company funds are useful afterall. But think about that just for a second. Would ANYONE believe the study then. Keep on being asked to lie about a particular study I have particular fault with and threatened with having my funding withdrawn. The threat doesn't work all that well since I haven't seen any money yet anyway and wonder if I ever will.
So let me ask you? Which would you think is prefrable. Work for a rapidly pro global warming entity that has a good reputation but know they are happy to ask a researcher to lie. Work for another entity at least partly funded by an oil company in the knowledge that the whole exercise is pointeless because of the assumed bias everyone will have. Talk about depressing options. Give up the whole thing because it does not matter. No one will listen. Bad data will be used because, it seems in global warming, it is acceptable as long as it reaches the right conclusion. Bad scientific methods will persist because - actually I'm not real sure about this one. I have been thinking about it. Laziness perhaps. You can get away with it. No one is going to press you. Actually, I do believe that it is because those that believe think that they are right in their conclusions and if the facts have to be massaged a bit to fit the conclusions, well it is the fate of the world we are talking about. Really would you like to be the global warming advocate that demonstrated the first really major chink in the whole argument. What if global warming really is close to a tipping point and your report, being used to argue for inaction, dooms everyone.
Regards
Richard
