I would have thought that the global warming fraud would have died out and you would be all worshipping Barry Too-white Soeloro aka Barrack I “The Usurper”. But no. There you are still SJT. Making a complete ass of yourself. You just read the post. You saw what happened. You saw how they tried to overstate the October temperatures. And so why did you come up with this “conspiracy theory” idiocy for.

We’ve just got to hunt you frauds down and get you fired somehow. Thats what this counterattack against the malicious fraud lacks. It lacks a real determined strategy to bring this compulsive lying to an end. And that can only happen with a concerted campaign to deny the liars stolen-money-funding.

What is this IDIOCY where you say the phrase “CONSPIRACY THEORY” and think you have made a valid argument?

We all know what herd-animals and compliant insects you dumb-leftists are? These things could be a conspiracy. Or they could be standard leftist idiotic behaviour. The point is that saying the phrase “conspiracy theory” isn’t some magic incantation that can take the place of making a valid argument.

I am not going to discuss this anymore because you have simply proved yourself incapable of understanding fairly simple concepts.

“Well, they don’t use the same base period NT, and even if they did, as WFT has demonstrated, they are still profoundly different with GISS consistently warmer than the satellites; and this when the satellites have proven they have a greater sensitivity to genuinely warmer conditions such as prevailed during 1998;”
In the first case, so what? It makes no difference if they are all trending the same way. Typically they all go up the same time and go down at the same time.
Are you seriously saying that this shows they are out of step?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12

This is madness!
How big is the deviation? Is it within error?

You are again simply demonstrating that you just want to put doubt where there is none.

I can’t take you seriously Cohenite. You are as bad as Louis with his abiogenic oil and no plate tectonics.

“From Steve’s comments it appears that the Australian data were not in when GISS did the original analysis. It used to be normal practice for the Australian station summaries to be compiled in the National Climate Centre from field reports and sent as a block to GHCN, Asheville. Maybe the Melbourne Cup holiday meant the summary was late being dispatched. If that was the case, what was the basis for first guess field that, in the absence of real data, became the real solution. A mixture of last month’s pattern and climatology?”

Well, they don’t use the same base period NT, and even if they did, as WFT has demonstrated, they are still profoundly different with GISS consistently warmer than the satellites; and this when the satellites have proven they have a greater sensitivity to genuinely warmer conditions such as prevailed during 1998;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

This ‘debate’ has now become totally surreal; there is no correlation over the longer, geological, timescales between CO2 and temperature, and there is none over the short-term; GISS and Hansen have had their hands in the cookie jar so often only a fool or a fanatic would trust them; and if the official IPCC source of data has a track record of unreliability and obfuscation then how can its hypothesis be trusted.

“All of a sudden, a “hot spot” has developed over the Canadian Arctic Islands and the Arctic Ocean north of North America, that wasn’t there on Monday (it was gray on Monday). A smaller hot spot also developed over Australia.

I had downloaded the GHCN file on Monday (and saved it). I downloaded the GHCN file once again and checked for stations that had October values today, but not on Monday. All but two were in Australia with the other two also in the SH.

I haven’t crosschecked the Australian data but at least there’s some new data to support this part of the change. There was no new information from GHCN on the Canadian Arctic Islands. So what accounted for the sudden hot spot in the Canadian Arctic Islands??

Why can Hansen obtain values for October in the Canadian Arctic Islands today when he couldn’t on Monday?”

from http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4332

And it’s not strange at all that all four systems actually give similar results (if you use the same base period for all 4).

I don’t think that UAH or RSS will be used that much, I think there will have to be a dedicated system designed to measure temps at particular heights. Don’t forget that the satellites used by UAH and RSS aren’t designed specfically for temp. They have to process their data and are similarly afflicted by glitches.

I don’t understand why you have it in for GISS. The reliability of station data is a different story. I think it’s incredible that the anomaly data is actually quite good. There are few spikes and the data is confirmed by the other 3 data sets. Also note that 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, this is affected by UHI. And the station data that is affected is corrected. You can argue all you like that it’s not good enough, but it’s a trivial argument as there is no evidence that UHI is biasing the results – just look where the higher anomalies are…

Ian.
Yes you made my point for me re: the interpretation. However, when I made that statement it was replying to Jennifer’s assertion that temps had been falling during 2008. This is why I said they had been rising since about March. Actually you could probably say they have been rising all year.