The raw data sets are essentially the same, how they adjusted the data is different. However, Goddard is criticizing USHCN, not BEST, so I'm not sure why you're bringing BEST up. You should probably take Ben's advice and not quote the material you are attempting to refute, it makes your strawman less obvious.Interesting. Point is that BEST was done by a different group using different methods yet they got the same result as USHCN. This is a pretty good validation. Thing is that USHCN has been pretty transparent about all its modifications. Here for example is a detailed description of the adjustments made: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/#processi...Feel free to identify specifically what it is they did wrong. See, that's the curious thing about all this criticism. Deniers claim that the data has been doctored inappropriately, but only because the adjusted data aren't showing what they want it to show. No one I've seen has yet to describe what specific adjustments were inappropriate and why.I'm guessing it is because all the adjustments were appropriate and the people on this board claiming otherwise have no idea what they are talking about. But I could be wrong, often am, which is fine because then I learn something. So would be happy to have someone, anyone, identify and explain the flaw in the statistical method used by the USHCN to adjust the temperature data. Would also be nice if they could explain why such a flaw still allowed such a strong congruence with the independently obtained BEST data.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra