With NOAA/NASA temperature databases being deemed as untrustworthy, where does the AGW cause go from here?

The data is flawed and far too politically charged how long it can last as we move to a cooling phase is anyone's guess as some leading scientists are saying that if the sunspots don't start up soon again we could be heading for a prolonged minimum and that means colder winters... much colder... especially in Europe. Furthermore the conclusion is that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. They say that previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. Sadly and I mean sadly global warming will be a thing of the past as I for one hate the cold but I guess the idiotic environmentalists can shout global cooling again and find some way to blame us! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/dalton-minimum-repeat-goes-mainstream/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://www.springerlink.com/content/qul9yuhrfjvbbgc2/

It would be nice to see a source or two leading to actual investigations of the data, as opposed to just what this man says. It's rather difficult to form an informed opinion when we're, you know, not informed. What more, the man's retired. Where is he getting his information from? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D'Aleo

Does it matter. The number supporting AGW are just made up anyway.

Even if you throw out the NASA-GISS GISTEMP, the Met Office/CRU's HadCRUT3 shows a similar pattern since 1880. GISTEMP does incorrectly suppress 1998 and elevate some subsequent years. Le Mouël et al., 2008 were able to reconstruct surface temperatures in such a way to more or less eliminate the apparent secular trend shown by GISTEMP and HadCRUT3. But, even if both data sets suppress the early 20th century warming (as D'Aleo makes a good case for), I don't see how you can prove it sufficiently to kill AGW like Copernicus killed the Ptolemaic solar system. Both satellite data sets (RSS & UAH) are in fairly good agreement with GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 from 1979-2010. So all of the surface temp. shenanigans predate the satellite data. It don't think it will be possible to kill AGW until we have at least 60 years of satellite temperature data (we currently have slightly more than 31 years of data).

"With NOAA/NASA temperature databases being deemed as untrustworthy" No, it hasn't. You might want to try and explain your assertions. Just saying something doesn't make it so, but you already knew that. Try this, go to random bank a say you want $1,000,000 withdrawn from your account. So what if you don't have an account. The teller should just believe that you have one and $1,000,000 in it.

BB I have little doubt that you know this is BS, to say that icecap is one of the most popular climate websites is laughable, I'm sure it's popular with deniers. I have worked for 20 years in a group that researches climate and till I joined this site I'd never heard of icecap. All you seem to have here is Joseph D'Aleo talking to some unknown web blogger on his views as a denier (which he has been for a number of years) Why not a main stream media source, because with the exception of a couple of well know newspapers and Fox most of the media won't listen to these guys any more.

"24 Aug 10 -" "We cannot trust NOAA's or NASA's data bases to make important policy decisions," days meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo in this shocking interview with Kim Greenhouse." There is nothing shocking about D'Aleo making unfounded and unsupported statements. It would actually be shocking if he backed up his assertions.