Do you think Steven McIntyre is unbiased? Do his assumptions indicate otherwise?

Question

Steve McIntyre complains about the large adjustments made by NASA GISS to some of the data series. In fact, he displays graphs showing some of those adjustments, the largest of which are for Puerto Maldon, which has more than a 3-degree adjustment between 1958 and 1988. As usual, a question is asked which includes a none-too-subtle (in fact rather obvious) implication of deliberate misdeeds by NASA GISS:

"The annual variation in monthly temperatures is only a few degrees. Given this very placid temperature variation, how can Hansen simply assume that something happened that threw the measurements off by 3 deg C?"

A better question is how can Steve McIntyre simply ASSUME that James Hansen would “simply assume”?

In reality, NASA simply used the nearby rural stations to correct for the bias in the urban station (Puerto Maldon).

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/3city1yrtrend.jpg

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others/

Answer 1

man you talk too much

Answer 2

Of course McIntyre is NOT unbiased.  He's a man on a mission.  His mission is to confuse and obfuscate the scientifically and mathematically challenged.  He takes pot-shots at mountains of data and hopes he can occasionally pick off a pea-sized chunk that will reinforce his predetermined conclusion.

Answer 3

I think he's frustrated with a handful of the folks on the AGW side - - how long did he have to spend asking Mann for the methodology in his reconstruction?

EDIT - Ken if that's all that he was doing then neither Mann nor Hansen would have made corrections to their models in response to his points.