>Hi,
> This type of error has been found in a number of these latest datasets. The problem is that as soon as their model shows the slightest sign of proving warming, this is where they stop.
>
> One of the problems is the effect of localized heat island effect upon the the monitoring station/s it skews the results by just the amount that they are looking for.
>
> A Local New Zealand researcher has also done a lot of research in this area and has found that the average temperature has been dropping in our area for about the last six maybe seven years, but he has been howled down by those pushing the Man Made Global Warming barrow. His statistical analysis methods are very good whereas his opponents methods leave a lot to be desired.
While I do believe that the global climate is going out of whack (something had to set those icecaps into a melting phase), I even more strongly believe that there's much more chaff than wheat in the research on both sides. Your New Zealander guy may actually be right - the global warming doesn't necessarily mean it's getting warmer
equally everywhere. Its going out of old balance may also mean that some places were getting much warmer (heck, my old place in Europe just had 42
o Celsius, previous record was 37 and that was 50+ years ago) while some are getting somewhat colder.
I'm fully aware that anything that's getting so much publicity will attract a lot of people who are in it just for the money or fame, which degrades the quality of research. But if it's so easy to poke holes in the research in the "global warming IS happening" side, why did GW2B force the EPA reports to be forged, why did he have to fire a few whistleblowers (while many more just quit in disgust)? And why did the big oil have to pour few dozen million dollars into junk science ordered to prove that global warming is junk science?