re: #240 AJStrata

PLease don’t call me dude, and right off the bat you miss this key graph that shows even when taking everything that Watts complains about is taken into account, there is no significant difference in the data.

You are falsely cherry picking. That is a form of lie. There are many lies you have posted here, it just takes time to out all of them.

So first off…

Lets look at the graph in dispute shall we? It is on page three:

Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

In other words, you are falsely creating a non-existent controversy.

Your claim is debunked completely. Yet, when faced with evidence of such, you continue to persist. This is a classic denier stratagem, of insisting on a false controversy when there is none.