Curry on Michaels’ testimony
Here is further explanation why I think Michael’s testimony is significant, and why I think the issue of the attribution since 1950 will be the battleground in U.S. CO2 policy.
While it is my understanding that this temperature correction has not yet been applied to the CRU data set, Michaels’ application of this seems consistent with what Thompson et al. recommend.
I have no idea whether these adjustments to the temperature record are correct, but they certainly reflect the overall uncertainty in the data.
– Judith Curry
So basically concerning his claim about temperature trends you say
” I have no idea whether these adjustments to the temperature record are correct,”
And on his second point
“So technically, Michael’s argument has not refuted the foundation of EPA’s endangerment finding “
Other than “Interesting if true” where you apparently have no idea if it’s true, why is his testimony “significant”?
“And those defending the science the behind the EPA endangerment ruling (which is basically the IPCC) need to shore up their arguments. “
Shore up their arguments against what? A temperature correction of unknown quality and an attribution of warming you’re not convinced by?