But I wanted to share two funny bits with you. First, from the climate crowd who claims to have their science so buttoned down that we skeptics should not even be allowed to talk about it any more, comes this:
Taking into account the new data, they said, seven of the eight
warmest years on record have occurred since 2001
What new data? That another YEAR had been discovered? Because when
I count on my own fingers, I only can come up with 6 years since 2001.
Second, comes this bit of irony: There are many reasons why satellites gives us a potentially better measure for world temperatures than surface temperature instruments. They give us full global coverage (except the poles) and are free of urban and other biases. So I have always wondered if the only reason that climate scientists defend the surface temperature record over satellites is merely because they don't like the answer satellites are giving (they show less warming than do surface temperature records).
But here is the irony: The person who is arguably the strongest defender of land-based measurement over satellites, and who maintains what neutral observers feel is the most upwardly-biased surface temperature record, is Gavin Schmidt, who is ... wait for it ... head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA.