Ferdinand Engelbeen
Anthony Watts has guest post by Ferdinand Engelbeen (the guy Plimer plagiarised) explaining how we know that the increase in CO2 is not natural. Good on Watts for putting some accurate science on his blog. Mind you, the comments include folks like Richard Courtney arguing against it.
Hat tip: TrueSceptic
Eli Rabett has been investigating Ian Plimer's claim that climate scientists were cooking the books on the CO2 record. Plimer wrote:
The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis [2902,2903]. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. [p 416 of Heaven and Earth]
The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102…