The IPCC is not perfect. They make scientific predictions as best they can, knowing full well that they will never be exact, but based on the information they have. They openly admit when they make mistakes. The truth of the matter is that they have actually been too conservative on most of their predictions, yet you have no outrage on those errors. I thought you were mad when people "lied" to you. In most cases they "lied" about how small the threat actually was. But you want to focus on the few that they overestimated. You are targeting your outrage on the smallest portion of the IPCC's errors. If you are objective, you might want to look at the underestimations as well.

Yes Jan. I have. I get a little frustrated with you when you respond to my posts in this manner. While I have done my part, you and I need others to do theirs. Unfortunately, many have taken the bait on "climategate" and I am working to set the record straight. Please stop suggesting that everything I post is unimportant. I don't do that to you.

@ WakeUpPeople

Cross that item off your list for the debate. . In NASA’s OWN words (read the article if think its faux or big oil or some "denier" saying it. ) their data is not as accurate as the IPCC's data. (I am not going to show my cards on the IPCC yet)

I'm sorry Dagum, but I thought we were going to look at the best data available to us to make informed decisions. I didn't know that you were going to try to throw out all data because Fox "News" reporters call it "bigger than climate-gate".

From the article: "...USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,"

So NCDC is the best source for climate data overall, but there are others, such as NASA, that are considered less reliable because some of the readings come from areas with nearby structures.

From the article: "Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn't match. "I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data," he says. "Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU."

So we are back at the question of whether or not you trust the scientists with the raw data, and you have made it clear that you don't. That does not mean that all of the data is flawed and that the scientists do not take the flawed data out of the equation. There is a process for "correcting" the data by the CRU which is described below:

"Filtering inhomogeneities out of meteorological data is a complicated procedure. Coherent surface air temperature (SAT) datasets like those produced by CRU also require a procedure for combining different (but relatively nearby) record fragments. However, the methods used to undertake these unavoidable tasks are not secret: they have been described in an extensive literature over many decades (e.g. Conrad, 1944; Jones and Moberg, 2003; Peterson et al., 1998, and references therein). Discontinuities may nevertheless persist in data products, but when they are found they are published (e.g. Thompson et al., 2008).

Furthermore, it is a fairly simple exercise to extract the grid-box temperatures from a CRU dataset—CRUTEM3v for example—and compare it to raw data from World Monthly Surface Station Climatology. CRU data are available from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature. One should not expect a perfect match due to the issues described above, but an exercise like this does provide a simple way to evaluate the extent to which the CRU data represent the underlying raw data. In particular, it would presumably be of interest to know whether the trends in the CRU data are very different than the trends in the raw data, since this could be taken as indication that the methods used by CRU result in an overstatement of the evidence for global warming.

As an example, we extracted a sample of raw land-surface station data and corresponding CRU data. These were arbitrarily selected based on the following criteria: the length of record should be ~100 years or longer, and the standard reference period 1961–1990 (used to calculate SAT anomalies) must contain no more than 4 missing values. We also selected stations spread as widely as possible over the globe. We randomly chose 94 out of a possible 318 long records. Of these, 65 were sufficiently complete during the reference period to include in the analysis. These were split into two groups of 33 and 32 stations (Set A and Set B), which were then analyzed separately.

Results are shown in the following figures. The key points: both Set A and Set B indicate warming with trends that are statistically identical between the CRU data and the raw data (>99% confidence); the histograms show that CRU quality control has, as expected, narrowed the variance (both extreme positive and negative values removed)"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-a...

So essentially, the random extreme highs and lows that occurred were dismissed and they were less that 1% of the entire raw data. Again, we are in a situation where a skeptic thinks they have found something that the scientific community has not already considered, but the truth is that they already have and they have already chosen to select the absolutely most reliable data to use in their analysis.

I hope you read the whole thing. Sorry it was long, but there was a lot of information to provide.

Yes not as accurate. That is a NASA quote and that is what I said. Where exactly is the deceit or incompetence? So because NASA's primary job and funding is not dedicated to monitoring global temps then we are to believe they are part of the Climategate scandal?

I'm glad you can read. Now learn to interpret.

"I'm glad you can read. Now learn to interpret."

Take your own advice with a side of green-kool aid. Yes I responded to you but with the "@wakeupeople”

My comment “Cross that item off your list for the debate.”

Was referring to a list of arguments he made for belief in the global warming dogma. If you read and interpreted my response you could probably deduct that one of the items on his list revolved around the NASA dataset.

But then again from my comment you somehow deduct that I said “NASA… is part of the Climategate scandal.”

It’s okay deductive reasoning is not for everyone. Work through it slowly, you’ll do better next time.

We are going to look at the best data set available but one of your points on that list was that NASA disagreed with me . Since they had their own dataset, logic would infer that they relied on it. And its substantially worse the IPCC/CRU data (to no ones surprise because they are not a climate but a space agency). So cross that off your list. If we are going to debate you have to be able to concede points. I will.

But the point I was trying to make was that NASA admits that the raw data it collects is less reliable than that of the NCDC (basically NASA has more stations that have to be dismissed because of interference from other structures, but that does not suggest that all of the data from all of the stations is useless). The second point from the article was that there should only be concern if NASA's data (once corrected) failed to match the data from the other 3 organizations, which it did not. So the overall point to be made is that these organizations are only using the best, most reliable data in their analysis. Twisting the words of a NASA employee to suggest that ALL of the data is faulty is an incorrect assessment. You may consider this a scratch off the list, but I would hope your future claims are more substantiated. This taken out of context soundbite "journalism" isn't what I was hoping to learn from you.

I agree with you. NASA really isn't substantial to the debate either way.