LOL, I have lost all respect for all warmers. I have consistently placed facts up about how the global temps are found, how the climate sensitivity is found and how the climate models are generated. I have consistently placed facts that show extreme amounts of uncertainty, coupled with a serious concern about bias entering the "corrected" data.

It doesn't matter to them. They don't care about science or truth. The only thing ANY of the warmers have been able to say, amount to insults and claims that I am lying. When I ask them very simply to point out what they think is a lie, they point to the "consensus". A consensus that some warming is occurring! A consensus that I agree with!!!

It is rather useless to try to reason with them. If they were honest, they would either admit the uncertainty or provide an argument to contradict mine. They do neither.

Pegminer,

You are perhaps the worst offender. You understand science and the scientific method. You understand variability and how bias can easily enter a study. You understand that model are entirely worthless until they have been shown to be effective at prediction. When I call you out on this, you simply ignore the question and pretend that I am just supposed to accept that all of the "corrections" are unbiased, because I have a PhD in stats.

See? I can match your style of opinionm debate to a tee. Now lets deal with FACTS.

Your temperature data for CONUS "required" "corrections" that were so dramatic that many yearly averages changed by 0.5 degrees. CONUS!!! The most accurately kept set of temp records!!! And the accuracy you place on the global records used in making a spatial model of global temps or the resultant model??? You need every bit of that 0.8 degrees of warming. What happens if it was only 0.5 degrees??? A 0.3 degree difference, yet your exponential models would shrink to the point of little global concern.

The data you use for coming up with the climate sensitivity is MUCH WORSE. You are using surrogates of surrogates in specific locations, like the ice core data. Do you really want to talk about the accuracy of THIS, and deride the accuracy of this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

Farming in Greenland. Either a location can be used to accurately measure the temp of the world or it can't be. We KNOW there was farming in Greenland and thus Greenland was warmer. So which is it? Can the past temps in locations be used to model the global temps or not???

You constantly want to have your cake after you have eaten it!!!.

And these surrogates of surrogates, do you care to talk about the accuracy of them? How well those surrogates match with the curent temp and CO2 concentrations???

All of this uncertainty, you bash right into the climate models. Climate models that you KNOW have many unaccounted factors. All so that you can model a KNOWN chaotic system out 100 years, just to claim +/- 1.5 degrees of certianty 100 years out, while they are doing a poor job of modeling NOW!!!!

You want me to support you in this endeavor? Sure, I understand that you can still get relatively accurate data from few data points given the right conditions. But I also understand the "corrections" and the number of assumptions used in creating the "corrections". Do you realize that the 0.5 degree corrections to the earlier temp data had to do with measurement devices being located closer to heaters and asphalt???

First the heater thing. We don't have accurate records indicating how close the thermometers were to heaters.

Second the asphalt. Wait a tic... Urban heat island effect is minimal, but this is large? Eating the cake again?

If I made post hoc changes to my data that extremely favored my conclusion of my drug being more effective, I would be laughed right out of my field. So don't tell me I am an offender for not correcting every "denier", when your record of correcting warmers is atrocious.

Pegminer and Hey Dook have already answered your question. I would like to add to what they have given you. You, among others, have the mind set that the temperature data records are the only observations that can be made concerning as to if the planet is showing a warming trend. This is not only a narrow minded approach to the subject but it is also completely wrong. Do you have to put a thermometer on a tin roof during a sunny and hot summer day to know if the roof is hot? No, there are other direct observations that you could make to discover this. Here are some observations that you can make concerning our climate to know if the climate is warming or cooling or even remaining about the the same: (remember that climate is a measure over at least a 30 year period)

1. What is the ice across the planet doing? What have the long term trends been? Nearly all of the glaciers across the planet are in a state of decline and the rate of decline has been increasing. Do you need temperature data to see if the ice is warming?

2. What does the specie migrations tell us? Plant and animal species have shown a migration into areas that were formerly too cold to support their existence there. Do you need a thermometer do make this observation?

3. Droughts and flood events are become more frequent, more enduring and more extreme than they were over the past 150 year average. You do not need a thermometer to observe that the climate is in a process of change with this.

4. Some of the largest and most potent tropical cyclogenesis storms around the world have occurred since 1960. A warmer climate allows for more moisture in the atmosphere. Atmospheric moisture is the fuel for storms. For every 1C of warming of the atmosphere you will have the potential for the atmosphere to hold 4% more moisture. Examples: Typhoon Tip - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip , Typhoon Haiyan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Hai... , Hurricane Wilma - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_W... , Hurricane Camille - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_C... , Typhoon Megi -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Meg... , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Zeb , Cyclone Monica - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Mon... , Hurricane Dean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_D... and Typhoon Bopha -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Bop... are all examples of how these storm systems are occurring more frequently and are becoming stronger. Yes, there were powerful and damaging storms prior to 1960. The trend has been more frequent and more powerful such storms over the past 50 tears.

5. More atmospheric moisture also allows for more potent snow events when they occur. Remember how much the marionettes for the denial industry like to bring up snow events and how much snow an area is getting? An increased amount of snow is only possible with an increased amount of atmospheric moisture.

The data should be accurate but the chances of it truly representing a global average are remote because there were not enough thermometers. There are not enough now in my opinion. Africa is very sparsely populated with thermometers.

As pegminer says, the further you go back the wider the error bars will become.

The Central England data is shown below. Note the barely discernable upward trend when you plot actual temperatures and not anomalies. The data starts in 1772 and is daily.

"Do you need temperature data to see if the ice is warming? " Yes you do! Melting is not the only way ice can disappear. Think of the snow on Kilimanjaro. That was a problem with An Inconvenient Truth. This is how attempts are made to fool the public. They rely on the general public not understanding the options or the precise meaning of the terminology used. Disingenuous?