Pay no attention to the fact that the originally published data was for the US only and did not correlate to every other data set of global temperatures ever taken.
That's right: the data that "shows" cooling immediately got called out because it was wrong and obviously so. So NASA went back and figured out their error.
So you are saying the original presentation of the raw data, in 1989, was a conspiracy? The revised data, using revisionist history, is better? Revisionist history is also being taught in publics school, as though the modern bias of one party trumps the raw data.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Raw data is raw data, while massaged data is data this is massaged to reflect the bias of a ruling status quo. Book burning is common with tyrants who then revise what is taught. Has anyone ever presented only the raw data on this site, and then allow everyone to look at that and discuss that? Or does it need to be massaged first due to book burning?
Satellites have only been used to measure surface temperature since the mid 1960's, with the early techniques only good for cloud free areas where it is usually warmer.
Before then surface temperature was measured the old fashion way with thermometers. Data from the 1900 to 1960's is all based on thermometers, while 2010 is a composite favoring space data as we get closer to the present. One concern is satellites attempt global coverage whereas weather stations were only placed here and there in hopes this was a good placement for an average.
The placement of the original land stations were not done just for one variable like temperature, but many were place to investigate weather extremes. The station on top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire is there because it has the highest recored surface winds, but this does not reflect the best temperature placement to average New Hampshire. That was not the intent of that station, although temperature will be measured as part of the data collection.
The number of surface weather stations has decreased globally, since the early days, with the USA maintaining the most, although this has gone down from 6000 to 1500. Globally, the numb ryas gone down even more, where there are also surface stations that still work but are not connected to the grid. One can get the data on CD for a cost, but it is not part of the grid in real time. Maybe the revisionists history data is needed to normalize to the present. Has anyone done point data, with the satellite to reflect just the historical land stations? Maybe satellite is not that good for 100 ft2 targets, to create a historical average parallel or simulation.
As far as the emotional argument of Koch Brothers and big oil paying for research, when anyone is singled out by politics, such as with liberals has historical done with oil, even before the global warming scare, you have to defend yourself against slander and lies when you trade and sell with the public. This is defensive research to make sure your POV is heard over political games. What defensive science does is increase the cost of doing business, so the overpriced solar and alternative energy could appear more competitive. The rising price at the pump are then blamed on big oil as being due to greed but not a need to defend against bullies.
This is why you need to factor in political scams, when dealing with areas of science that use politics to single out certain industries and individuals.
Edited by HydrogenBond, 05 October 2014 - 07:47 AM.