The scale
of the surfacestations scandal is so large, that it is impossible that the AGW peddlers do nt know that the whole temp reconstruction is totally meaningless.
The «audit»
of surfacestations is motivated by political bent more than scientific inquiry.
It never did make sense that the earliest analysis
of the surfacestation data couldn't detect clear differential in station siting from the data.
Not exact matches
That memo failed to even mention Anthony Watts or the
Surfacestations Project, although the substance
of the memo made it clear, and the internal emails that pushed the memo cited surfacestation.org directly.
Some volunteers have recently begun a similar project for stations in the U.K. on Tallbloke's TalkShop blog (see here for a list
of all the posts tagged with «
surfacestations»).
He stresses the fact on the
surfacestations site that many
of these sites are private residences and to respect private property.
When I have more, I'll pass it along and
of course at the appropriate time the
surfacestations main page will get an update.»
This from Watts (at WTF) on 8/31: «For those
of you wondering about the upcoming
surfacestations project paper, let me say that it is now mostly out
of my hands and will not be impacted by item 1.
One
of those, I'd have to check my records) that I visited as a
surfacestations volunteer.
On April 24, 2008, at a presentation about the
surfacestations projects to NCDC, Matt Menne, lead author
of the USHCN2 project, briefed Anthony Watts on USHCN2's algorithms and how they operated.
This does not proclaim that the data would be skewed by their inclusion any more than the
surfacestations assertion that bad stations were the cause
of the warming trend in the US temperature record.