Well once again you dismiss me and talk down to me which is why I seldom post here anymore. You continue to have an agenda about anything I say or write. Your response is dripping with snootiness. That said, my question did not imply that NOAA was better and Boulder was worse. I simply asked how does the average guy reading an article from AP posted in the NY TImes, no less, know if the data presented is real? I assume you wrote to the Associated Press telling them that their article was false? That the data is erroneous? Thanks for your work in keeping the world free from fake climate data.
I sure did a lot of work for you to be called "dismissive" (first, I moved your post from FF where it did not belong, to here. then I stripped out a bunch of code that you inadvertently pasted, in order to make your post readable, then I dig up credible sources to call the NOAA data and conclusions into question.). I sensed a snide remark implying that NOAA is credible but NSIDC or the DMI are not, and the vaguest hint that I might not be referencing credible data. If there was an edge to my post, that was why. The last comment above is consistent with that assessment. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I did not feel like you were taking it seriously, too. If you had, you might have looked a bit deeper into the issues and the data problems before you responded, OR, asked me more pointed questions and let me give you what I've got (though I assume you do not believe me to be an honest or credible actor on this point). It seemed like a calculated, glib response, intended to cast doubt upon my critique/discount of the NOAA headline (btw, I find the NOAA to be incredibly self important given the quality of some of their work).
In any case, to clearly answer your question, neither you, nor anyone should rely upon the AP or NYT for reliable climate research. AP is not credible on anything and the NYT is generally unquestioning of any liberal "cause celebe", "climate change" being just one. Research the original data sources and the various critiques and explanations. Do they resonate? Do they make sense?
I particularly like to read comments in science blog posts that are critical of this stuff. A lot of insights are available there, often from folks actively involved in building the data sets. It pays to learn about who's building the data sets and how independent they and the data are.
You can ask me, too. I'll tell you why I like some data sets over others and you can double check them yourself to see if I'm off or missing something important.
