#4 Temperature Homogenization - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it is looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this fourth installment I'll be debating your next shrill cry of fraud over how NOAA and others processes raw temperature data.

______________________________________
______________________________________

Steele:  In addition when I analyzed California's local climate trends in relationship to wild life changes, much of the raw data that I saw

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Specifically what data sets did you gather for this "analysis"?  Where can we view that?  Can you explain your methods for processing the data and arriving at your conclusions?  

Or were you just doing casual "research" for a story book you were writing?   

I ask because turning to your Landscapesandcycles article, "Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments: Conspiracy or Ignorance?" I only found a few scattered rough temperature graphs and your anecdotal stories.  

Worse, the logic you employ totally demands an a priori assumption that scientists must be fraudulently manipulating data, while you ignore all sorts of available information about why certain adjustments are made.

You never present a plausible mechanism for how such a surgical manipulation of data could possibly be pulled off, without the output devolving into chaos?  Or, why bother?

Well, you do rely on one study, authored by Anthony Watts no less.  A study that has been shown to be a terribly flawed piece of science, as I demonstrate at the end of this debate.  But you treat it as thee gold standard. 
~ ~ ~ 

Jim, for your edification, here's what a serious attempt to research the PDO and impacts on California looks like:

California Climate: Pacific Ocean Connection 

http://essea.strategies.org/module.php?module_id=122

At the end of this 'debate' I provide a couple studies looking at California conditions and how they are intimately related to our warming global heat distribution engine.
_________________________________

Steele: suggested typical warming and cooling associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and those cyclical patterns were not obvious at first...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
At your blog I found this: "The results seen below (figure b) suggest recent climate change has been more cyclical. Those cyclical changes parallel the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)."