There is no consensus, anyway (redux)

Roger Pielke Snr has a new post up, in which he documents all the scientific papers which question the robustness of the surface temperature record. There are a lot of them.

None of these are cited by the IPCC because they conflict with the need to obtain a particular result. Pielke is quite straightforward about this - it's bias. 

Comments

[Frank O'Dwyer]

"Pielke is quite straightforward about this - it's bias. "

Not that Pielke is biased.

[Bishop Hill]

He doesn't appear on the Wikipedia list of global warming skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptics

The other point is that he is writing an opinion column on his blog. Jones was writing a scientific paper. There's a difference.

[John Nicklin]

But you miss the point Bishop. Pielke is biased because he doesn't accept the consensus. That's what bias means now, giving time to the truth about global warming. To be unbiased, you simply have to follow the party line.