It's possible my long post was way too long, maybe I can summarize.
I have posted analysis (and tried to explain) from two scientists that are not at NASA. Both are trusted by Curry and Watts. One of the scientists is even often attacked as a skeptic.
Both of these scientists explain how your Goddard is anti-science. They do this by using the open data sets NASA has, and showing Goddard's analysis as wrong. Simply pointing differences in raw and adjusted data is not proof of any fraud as both scientists explain how it is well within the realm of regular adjustments. In addition the two scientists show other critical errors. Both Curry and Watts agree with the errors of Goddard.
I hope this helps why your statements based on Goddard's analysis is wrong.
LOL. You can't help yourself, ... or you still don't get it?
The link of the post was not a problem. The problem was that you continued to respond to a point that I explicitly rejected as the point I was making, in 2 or 3 consecutive posts, as if you were responding to me. Since my denial was explicit, I thought you were doing it on purpose to try and score some childish win-the-debate points. Your last sentence reflects that same childishness in my opinion. However, if you really, honestly didn't understand, let me try and explain one more time.
My question continues to be whether we can trust the temperature data sets. I see both sides. On the one hand, I begin with the assumption that scientists aren't going to lie about data. On the other hand, there seems to be a significant amount of information about false data being reported.
So, while I'm open to both sides, I have become more sympathetic to the skeptical side because the headline you cited in your OP strikes me as propaganda rather than science. If the reporting body will put out propaganda press releases, will they also fudge the data as they have been accused? I raised it as
the issue to be discussed (please see my summarizing question at the end of post #9 to which you responded) after you said that you didn't want to talk about AGW. Your reply began by assuming the reported data sets are accurate and trustworthy.
Indeed, this most recent post from you further reflects why this conversation is so frustrating for me. I wasn't basing anything simply on Goddard. I pointed to the false data set on US temps which NASA blamed on a software issue, as you admitted. I then simply reported that Goddard believed the same sort of biasing of the data may be occurring on global data sets. In that post #9, I linked to a Judy Curry article where she was taking seriously the questions being raised, in part by Goddard, about the US data. So, my point focused on the issue being taken seriously not on one particular guy, Goddard, raising it. That's what makes your last sentence in this post so laughable.
Furthermore, you also seem to be over-simplifying the issue being raised. It's not simply the need for adjustments to the data. It's the significance of the adjustments and the apparent biasing of the adjustments, whether raw data which shows significant cooling is legitimately adjusted to reflect significant warming. At this point, I'd like to refer you to my initial post, #7, where I distinguished between discussion of facts and interpretation of facts.
As I said in that post, once you move away from the raw data, you are moving into the realm of interpretation of facts, and I mentioned Mann's hockey stick graph. Gavin Schmidt, who put out the press release for NASA, said it was defamatory for a political commentator, Mark Steyn, to call Mann's Hockey Stick fraudulent and has been a big supporter of Mann. I know you think it was just propaganda, but I suggest that you look further into how it arose in the first place. In other words, the person responsible for the NASA data set, has a dog in the political fight and was not outraged by bad data being reported.
I've also more recently linked to a longer report by Watts and D'Aleo which considers the data set questionable:
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts | June 2, 2010
SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS (by SPPI)
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than threequarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.
5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequatelycalibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.
8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.
