The other thing suggested is that what’s really needed is a self calibrating network that isolates locations that are drifting away from “true”. Having been involved in building sensor nets for industrial processes, I would have tp say it’s difficult enough to get working when its been designed for purpose with malice and forethought and you have some control over the operational environment. Trying to synthesise that result from a set of stations NOT designed for it by torturing the data isn’t likely to give reliable results.

With AGW we have:

The vanity of the modelers thinking their models accurately represent reality
The vanity of the reconstructors to think no one would check their work
The vanity of the clique to think they could control peer review.

The vanity of the engineer thinking it was unsinkable and so did not require a lifeboat for each passenger,
The vanity of the company wanting maximum speed
The vanity of humanity assuming the rich deserve better treatment than the poor.

I skimmed a recent issue of Scientific American containing an article regarding global warming research skeptics and how some researchers are taking them more seriously, or at least allowing them a voice.

The article states that several skeptic theories have been disproved, yet continue to circulate nonetheless. Naturally, the author doesn’t waste any ink telling us which theories those are, who disproved them, and whether there have been subsequent rebuttals by the skeptics.

I know you can’t read the mind of the author, but can you shed some light on what you think this author considers “disproved”?

Clearly, the hockey league no longer wishes to play.

Freudian slip? How do we know Freud even WORE a slip?

That said, I have not been thrilled by what I have seen of the actual techniques employed, especially since it is very difficult to determine whether the applied adjustments are actually improving the quality of the data.