Someone whose opinion I value has written to say, regarding the University of Colorado’s decision to stop providing SLR updates, “the spacecraft has had three separate problems this year, data has been erratic. . . . If at the end of the year the data changes character, then we’ll have something to holler about.”
I accept that, but another correspondent with similarly expertise offers:
The look at UCO site was spurred by a professor in Finland who inquired about end date of the data plot. It may be legit with satellite issues but they did not say failure, they said processing, which makes one suspicious. We have man-made global warming thanks to both carelessness in siting and maintenance and ‘processing’ the data at NCDC, NASA GISS, Hadley, NSIDC, etc.
But they question the buoys, the radiosondes, and satellites any time the data doesn’t agree – never questioning the siting or instruments they use to show the warming. So frustrating.
The latter points to where I was going with my own post. Unfortunately, we have a system that has proven itself unworthy of unquestioning acceptance, one that is even corrupt at times, which is not unexpected given the windfall of literally billions in taxpayer dollars that they found directed their way, all of which requires there to be a global-warming crisis.