DougR asks me, so I reply inside his text:
"TIA:Following up on your post listing the complete email from Kevin Trenberth, I quote from the email: "the Ceres data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement in 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is adequate."
********he says that the data are inadequate, not adequate - big difference in the meaning of the sentence. Must read carefully to understand
"End of story, right? "The data are surely wrong"? Why is it wrong?"
*******because the data do not agree with myrida (yes myriad) other independent indicators that all point to even more warming than CERES. Note that CERES data do not say "no warming". They say there is warming, but not as much as all the other independent indicators. Again, careful reading would bring your apparent understanding is not up to speed.
"Can it be proved it is wrong?"
********yes, see above. CERES is only one of many, many, many independent types of data.
"It seems that even the experts question the data."
********yes, in science, experts must always question the data. But Trenberth is not questioning the fact of global climate change. He is questioning why one particular data set dopes not show as much warming as all the others. Now, this careful and complete reading of his email does not support your political argument against climate change, does it?
***********To prove that your position is sicence-based, you must show that your position is falsifiable. so, what, DougR, piece of information or type of data (even hypothetical) would falsify your position that there is no human induced climate change?
*********If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, but I do not think I have.
"P. S. Please note: this post contains no personal attacks, no insults."
************neither does this one. :)