>>How are the government data sources and their conclusions thereof third   
   >>hand info?   
   >   
   >They are not really different datasets. The way it happens is that   
   >NOAA acquires the data, study their results and then massage them to   
   >correct for presumed defects.   
   >   
   >The massaged data and probably also the raw is passed on to GISS who   
   >study the data and again correct it for their version of presumed   
   >defects.   
   >   
   >GISS passes it on to NASA and guess what NASA does? Well you will have   
   >to guess because nobody really knows. (A continuing puzzle is why NASA   
   >regards correcting for the urban heat-island effect should require a   
   >progressive increasing of the raw temperatures as measured rather than   
   >a decrease).   
   >   
   >Anyway, they are different data sets of some kind I suppose.   
      
   Not only that, both government agencies reached slightly different   
   conclusion based on their own data sets.>   
      
   Regarding an science news article doing a survey of the tiny body of   
   denial scientist ffolk.   
   >... but in any case I would not expect the Guardian to recognise the   
   >best arguments of the 3% if they got up and bit it on the nose. I hope   
   >that you do not rely on the Guardian as your prefered source of   
   >climate science.   
      
   Bravo, more illustration of the logical fallacy of special pleading; as   
   far as imagination allows one sees.>--   
      
   Here is your chance to go beyond special pleading, what percent of involved   
   scientists deny?  What are their best arguments and what do they know that   
   others don't or have considered and rejected?  Sources requested it goes   
   without saying.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)