re: #337 Obdicut

Given that scientists constantly refine data for accuracy, it hardly even seems worth mentioning.

I do think part of the reason it’s being done is simply PR, and I do think they’re mistaken, because deniers and their ilk will take any result and spin it. If there was no investigation, they’d cry out for one. When someone is chosen to head it, they’ll scoff at his credentials— but if he says anything they can misconstrue, he’ll suddenly be a hero. It is very, very similar to the way that creationists attack Darwinism.

I don’t find it surprising that data is being reviewed, since data is constantly reviewed. I’m also unsurprised that the usual people are trying to make hay out of it.

Good answer.

Although on the “it’s being done is simply PR” I don’t agree. If you read the MET overview of what and why it is going to do this review, it is much more than just proving or disproving something for the public relations of it all.

There is intent to standardize how scientific agencies collect surface temperature data, who they refine it, share it, process it, all sorts of positive steps to better the science of climate change.

It is far from just a review of the 160 years worth of temperature data. If you read the press release, you will see the complexity of what they want to accomplish.

Anyone interested in good science can only wish the MET the best in this endeavor… it’s a very good step forward.