This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
...... but see this:
... VERY biased, as you might expect from this lot. Unfortunately this rag gets delivered to by place of work so I saw the whole article. Comments?
One of the problems of the report is the name Ross McKitrick. He has a habit of shooting his mouth off without checking his numbers. On one occasion he produced an analysis that showed that all the temperature increase could be explained by the urban heat island effect. Unfortunately, in doing the analysis, he fed degrees longitude into a routine expecting radians. When corrected for, his analysis fell short well short of showing what he wanted it to. Another time he showed that using a different averaging technique meant that average temperatures had fallen. Unfortunately, it was based on mean squares of vectors, and some of the vectors had missing data in them, and the routine interpreted those missing data as absolute zero... Until he learns to check his maths properly, he's not a reliable source of information on global warming. For me, John's argument about the nonlinearity of the climate, and how it explains the difference between the satellite measurements and land measurements, is the most convincing I've seen.
How were McKittrik's errors discovered? By analyzing the math that he freely distributed.
The Hockey stick folks fought tooth and nail to not release their data and math.
I was brought up to believe a scientist released his data and math, etc to the scientific community and let them blaze away at it.