Heh. :-D

David,

“And still no answer to the simple question – do you think that global temperatures are more accurately measured by surface stations or satellites?”

Define accurately – it means specific things to a scientist. Much of our data comes from periods before satellites were even considered to be technically possible – we’ve come a long way since 1960.

Again, because you seem to be having trouble reading the information already provided to you – I suspect that is because its overly complex and uses big words – here is a (note a, not the) methodology:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/

“Even a weasel one word “surface” or “satellite” answer would do. Then we could proceed.”

Aardvark. There you go. A one word answer. Quite why you think we’re going to “proceed” is another matter – you appear to be unable to comprehend things that most people find basic.

“Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but ’speak’ to me here.”

David you appear to be having the Adam / Alex problem again. Adam and Alex are two different words, and when the words that are used are different and happen to be names the people are usually different too. In my specific case I don’t have a website. therefore have never banned anyone. On the other hand its possible to see Alex’s point – why waste good electrons?

Even a weasel one word “surface” or “satellite” answer would do. Then we could proceed. Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but ’speak’ to me here.

As for me being a weasel, they’re lovely animals with an immense reputation for cunning and guile and sexual potency – I believe the phrase is “shagging like demented weasels”. Its rather sweet that you think of me that way, but I am married.

“Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide?”

And with that the Shark Was Jumped.

Apparently scientists are engaged in a huge conspiracy. Yes. That explains peoples unwillingness to give stuff that they’d like to be paid for. Obviously. It must be those nasty 9-foot tall blood drinking reptilian space-aliens that Mr Icke says are the Royal Family are in fact our nations senior scientists. Really.

And if you doubt the 9-foot tall aliens… it must be further evidence of a conspiracy.

Seriously. if you’re thinking that scientists are good at hiding things, you’ve never met one. As a group scientists talk. Specifically scientists talk a lot about their subject, pretty much all day. In fact, in order to hide their super-secret-lizard-alien-conspiracy, scientists do everything that they aren’t supposed to such as publish in internationally renowned journals like Nature.

“Commenting on this blog is conditional on three criteria; you need to be interesting, true, or at least funny. So far you’re 0 for 3, and I am going to delete anything else you send.”

Thus spake Alex the Yorkshire Canter who in similar vein to the ’scientists’ he admires refuses to tell us which data set he prefers for accuracy, ground stations or satellites.

Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide? And why are they so “frit” – now where have I heard that word before …?

…other than the company that paid for them. Welcome to Economics 101 – we’re doing Commerce today.

May I correct that slightly, I’m sure it was only a slip of the fingers that Alex failed to spot but it should read:

‘And, no, he’s not going to hand over the computer models to *anyone*!

The first question is – why not?

The second question is – what happened to open science?

And before you get all hoity-toity with me, Alex, perhaps you should remind yourself of the difference between raw data and computer models. We all know the ingredients for a cheese souffle but *it’s what you do to them* that decides whether the result is a light, delicious dish or a stodgy, collapsed pud!

Are you really having some problems comprehending the idea that things have value? If so, lets add basic economics to the list of things that you come at from, in your delightful phrase, “complete neutrality”.

As for Professor Phil Jones (PhD) we are talking about the editor of the journal Climate Change, a fellow of the Met Society in both the UK and the US, these aren’t things you wake up one morning with. In 1997 he won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by the Environmental Research Laboratories for “A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere” which you can find in Nature, 382, pages 39-46 (1996). That’s a pretty solid CV for saying things about climate change.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/abs/382039a0.html

Even your central point doesn’t hold much water – the basic raw data can be found here, on his website.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

There’s also a handy section which explains in laymans terms why your line of thinking is so wrong- headed. I leave it to you to do the required years of study to challenge it in any meaningful manner. That means that I look forward to hearing from you in, say, 2018 or thereabouts – assuming its 3 years to get a degree, 4 for a PhD, Maybe one more year for a Masters if required.

And, no, he’s not going to hand over the computer models to just anyone. If you want to pay to play then you can have a chat to the University:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/business/ideas

Basically you tell them what you want, they say it’ll cost a million quid, you turn up with a million quid and then its game on. Otherwise you’re just begging, because this is stuff they sell.

Yes, that’s right, Duff, OS maps are never updated.

Jones and/or the Met Office are *not* offering it for sale for the simple reason that it has *no* commercial value,

Not true. You, Duff, for one, want to see it. You would presumably pay some amount of money (even if only a small one) to see it. Therefore it has commercial value.