GISTEMP: 2009 tied for second warmest year on record

[swansont]

Also the "record" who's record global temperture is setting is completely uninformative regarding global warming. For the "warmest in 100 years" to be of any value you have to show that it is unique on longer time scales.

 

If the current trend ends up failing to surpass the even the Medieval Warm Period then AGW or not it becomes a non-issue.

 

But you previously admitted that this is the warmest in 1000 years, which means it's also warmer than the MWP.

[bascule]

Le Pew.

 

 

 

Hey cool, they are also the plateau of the current warming trend! It's amazing how that works.

 

Also the "record" who's record global temperture is setting is completely uninformative regarding global warming. For the "warmest in 100 years" to be of any value you have to show that it is unique on longer time scales.

 

If the current trend ends up failing to surpass the even the Medieval Warm Period then AGW or not it becomes a non-issue.

 

Furthermore, I'm still going to take all of Hansen's predictions with a grain of salt because 1) he has shown an ability for stupid mistakes (Y2K error in US and the Siberian flub) and 2) he is a hard core advocate rather than a pure scientist, making it even harder for him to check his own work.

 

Anyway, keep listening to Hansen, it makes no difference to me. But a few years from now these discoveries will fall into the category of "why didn't we catch these signs sooner?".

 

So do you admit you were wrong yet about how many years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest?

[swansont]

And any movement on admitting that history is not a prediction?

[jryan]

So do you admit you were wrong yet about how many years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest?

 

No, as I said originally, I don't trust Hansen or his methods because Hansen's methodology has been suspect in the past (from temperature adjustments to the his choices of weather stations used)

 

For instance: At the GISS website there is a running tally of weather stations chosen by GISS (read: Hansen) for determining yearly global temperature (link to page)

 

 

From that we get this interesting chart of GISS station selection versus temperature:

 

 

There is evidence there of warming artifacts introduced by the simple act of station choice. As it is explained in the source material the choice of stations introduced a warming step increase to the raw mean leaving GISS and it's code to erase the artifact from the data moving forward. I do not trust that he has done this properly. The fact that the raw mean jumps so dramatically shows a clearly that there is a warm bias in the selection process itself.

 

Also note that there is a roughly 2/3rd discrepancy between the GISS station numbers and the report I linked. As explained in that article, the GISS station selection also removed incomplete stations and duplicates, but the drop is still pronounced around 1990. Any artifact not accounted for in this reduction would therefor effect 10 years means from about 1985 and onward.

 

But, getting back to your point, I am conceding, for the sake of argument, that in this case he may be correct about his "warmest on record" claim because "recorded history" is meaningless to the global warming debate as well as the debate on anthropogenic contributions to global climate. Without a clear picture of non-recorded climate history any discussion of future trends is meaningless.

Edited February 3, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

No, as I said originally, I don't trust Hansen or his methods because Hansen's methodology has been suspect in the past (from temperature adjustments to the his choices of weather stations used)

 

You're not wrong because you find Hansen suspicious? No, sorry, that's not how it works.

 

You made a claim: only 2 years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest.

 

There was the Y2K flub where they started measuring temps later in the day after the Y2K software update and failed to adjust.. this was the source of the "8 of the 10 warmest years were in the last decade" claim... which had to be downgraded to 2 out of 10. Oops.

 

Please defend that claim. Support it with evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

There is evidence there of warming artifacts introduced by the simple act of station choice.

 

If by "evidence" you mean correlation, sure (although those temperature figures look funny). Here's another graph showing a correlation:

 

 

Clearly the emergence of Somali pirates is what lead to the unexpected cooling in 2008.

 

And yet funny, GISS didn't change substantially versus other GMST reconstructions:

 

Edited February 3, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

You're not wrong because you find Hansen suspicious? No, sorry, that's not how it works.

 

You made a claim: only 2 years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest.

 

No, I'm not wrong because I have provided failures on Hansen's part that contribute to my suspicion. You can choose on your own to excuse or ignore Hansen's foul ups as you wish. But that does change the fact that I have reasons for my opinion that are completely factual.

 

And again, I was talking about Hansen's claims on American records. Get that through your head. As I have already conceded, his faulty claim on American records reduced his claim from 9 of 10 to 3 of 10, with 4 dropping all the way out of the top 20.

 

You can argue his claim on GLOBAL tempertures all you want, I am arguing that my view of his GLOBAL temerature claims is tainted by his past screw ups on other claims. Period.

 

You can keep beat that global temperature drum all you want, but it doesn't erase the fact of Hansen's Siberian and Y2K screw ups that, for me, call into question his quality control.

 

Please defend that claim. Support it with evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I already have, repeatedly. I even corrected my own error from 2 remaining of the original 9 to 3 (also meaning 6 of the 9 warmest years (all in the previous decade) in U.S. record dropped out of the top 10 while the majority of those 6 dropped out of the top 20). It was a serious error on Hansen's part especially in the context of the claim he made.

 

Hell, he had fewer stations to deal with on his American claim and he still screwed it up.

 

His North American error was also important in that North America is heavily represented in his global climate reconstructions (which he then weights).. but in that case the low signal of the Y2K error is as much the result of his choice of weighting than any other reason.

 

Because of this you are left with even FEWER non-American stations that have a GREATER effect on his GISTEMP record. It's not entirely Hansen's fault, however, as the same cutting is happening at NOAA level as well (article on the subject)

 

 

If by "evidence" you mean correlation, sure (although those temperature figures look funny). Here's another graph showing a correlation:

 

 

This is a disingenuous crack that could be used (just as wrongly) to dismiss CO2 correlations. Discuss it or don't, but there is an actual connection between weather stations and weather data before the correlation.

 

 

And yet funny, GISS didn't change substantially versus other GMST reconstructions:

 

 

 

First, NOAA and GISS both have been pruning weather stations (as pointed out in the link above), on similar criteria, so it wouldn't be very telling if the two agree... nor would it put an end to the question of whether selectivity could be causing a warm bias in the record.

 

Furthermore, HadCRUT3 does indeed diverge noticeably on the colder side from both NOAA and GISS for the decade in question.

Edited February 3, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

jryan, I give up... I'm reporting your post. I've tried... really really hard... to get you to actually defend even just one of the things you say, and you won't.

 

"I have!" (substantiated my claim) is not a response. If you truly have please link to where you did or quote the relevant text. Otherwise simply making the claim you've defended a claim is no better than not defending it at all.

 

I will reiterate: your claim is wrong, and not supported by evidence. Either provide the requisite support for your claim or stop making it.

 

You are disseminating scientifically inaccurate information. Stop it.

[jryan]

jryan, I give up... I'm reporting your post. I've tried... really really hard... to get you to actually defend even just one of the things you say, and you won't.

 

"I have!" (substantiated my claim) is not a response. If you truly have please link to where you did or quote the relevant text. Otherwise simply making the claim you've defended a claim is no better than not defending it at all.

 

I will reiterate: your claim is wrong, and not supported by evidence. Either provide the requisite support for your claim or stop making it.

 

You are disseminating scientifically inaccurate information. Stop it.

 

I am citing failures on Hansen's part that Hansen himself has since corrected. You keep wanting me to bend my evidence into countering a claim I never made or on grounds I have long since corrected.

 

I have strong reservations on the skill of Hansen and his GISTEMP product, and I have given my reasons several times over (Y2K, Siberia, odd data consolidation and correlation to resulting rises in his temperature records).

 

It can't be said that I haven't conceded of points in this debate, I simply won't concede to this one because you are misrepresenting my position.

 

I stand by my assertion that I don't trust Hansen's skill in GISTemp3, and by your own evidence GISTemp and it's cousin NCDC (both managing station data in a very similar fashion) don't agree with HadCRUT3 in the decade that this thread is about. So in that sense NCDC isn't a very good control in any comparison with GISTemp3. GISTemp3 is the more divergent of the two from HadCRUT3, but I'd concede I wouldn't want to live on the difference between GISTemp and NCDC... but that isn't unexpected.

 

HadCRUT is derived from a sufficiently different methodology... and also happens to be sufficiently different from GISTemp3 in the last decade as well.

[bascule]

I am citing failures on Hansen's part that Hansen himself has since corrected.

 

Except his corrected analysis still shows 9 out of the 10 hottest years took place in 2000-2009 so that does not substantiate your claim:

 

this was the source of the "8 of the 10 warmest years were in the last decade" claim... which had to be downgraded to 2 out of 10. Oops.

 

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated any issues with Hansen's corrected analysis beyond the fact that it contained a data processing error at one point in the past.

 

You keep wanting me to bend my evidence into countering a claim I never made or on grounds I have long since corrected.

 

No, I just want you to either defend or retract one of the multitude of incorrect statements you've made in this thread. Instead every time I ask you just jump out there with red herrings.

 

So what's the deal jryan? Are you willing to admit you were patently wrong yet, or are you just going to keep dragging this out? Or perhaps you have some interesting evidence that supports your position which you haven't shared with us yet.

[jryan]

Except his corrected analysis still shows 9 out of the 10 hottest years took place in 2000-2009 so that does not substantiate your claim:

 

And my statement was about how he screwed up the U.S. records, you keep posting the GLOBAL records. His January 2007 announcement of U.S. records is STILL WORNG. VERY wrong, actually.

 

So still, your claim of GLOBAL records doesn't change the wrongness of his U.S. record announcement in 2007.

 

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated any issues with Hansen's corrected analysis beyond the fact that it contained a data processing error at one point in the past.

 

More than once, chief: Siberia, Antarctica, Australia in a few years with others still being discussed.. but since Hansen is batting 0 versus bloggers, you can't even give him the benefit in questionable situations like UHI homogenization, plus an interesting talk of differences in NCDC and GISS SST anomaly data, and so on.

 

So yeah, not once but repeatedly since people started checking in 2007.

 

Interestingly, if you look at this CA article on Hansen's 1998 models his low forcings "C" is pretty close to temperatures being reported now. Unfortunately he is still chasing the "A" forcing chart.

 

The danger of funneling science through advocacy is my guess.

 

No, I just want you to either defend or retract one of the multitude of incorrect statements you've made in this thread. Instead every time I ask you just jump out there with red herrings.

 

Which you keep claiming incorrectly.

 

 

So what's the deal jryan? Are you willing to admit you were patently wrong yet, or are you just going to keep dragging this out? Or perhaps you have some interesting evidence that supports your position which you haven't shared with us yet.

 

I'm not wrong, so I have nothing to admit to (at least nothing I haven't admitted to already). So will you admit that Hansen has had to admit to numerous large errors discovered by skeptics?

[bascule]

And my statement was about how he screwed up the U.S. records, you keep posting the GLOBAL records. His January 2007 announcement of U.S. records is STILL WORNG. VERY wrong, actually.

 

Wow, so why exactly did it take a few dozen posts to get to this revelation. Your original post makes no mention of the fact you were talking about US records.

 

So will you admit that Hansen has had to admit to numerous large errors discovered by skeptics?

 

I already have, but sure, I'll do it again. Steve McIntyre found a bug in the GISTEMP code for application of corrections for USHCN data. To reiterate, that bug was fixed, and the GISS web site updated with details of the correction. You can read more about it on my previous post on the issue at the beginning of the thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=541076

[jryan]

Wow, so why exactly did it take a few dozen posts to get to this revelation. Your original post makes no mention of the fact you were talking about US records.

 

But every single link I have provided for you on Hansen's Y2K error specifically stated it was an error for the U.S. and invalidated his claim in January 2007 that 9 of the warmest years in the U.S. on record were since 1997. It turned out to be 3.

 

I already have, but sure, I'll do it again. Steve McIntyre found a bug in the GISTEMP code for application of corrections for USHCN data. To reiterate, that bug was fixed, and the GISS web site updated with details of the correction. You can read more about it on my previous post on the issue at the beginning of the thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=541076

 

And Antarctica, and Australia, and Siberia... and I would guess before long his questionable pruning of weather stations will become another big problem for him.

 

As I said before, the U.S. may be 3% of the total Earth surface, but it has the lions share of weather stations.

 

The bias towards US stations is as bad with GHCN.. and in this CA article you can see the drop in stations as time progresses.

 

Those thinly spread stations around the globe must be pretty heavily weighted. Which is also interesting because as you see moving forward, those sparse stations more an more rely on estimated averages ands less on true averages. Erros in those stations are then maginified by their inordinate weight.

[swansont]

But every single link I have provided for you on Hansen's Y2K error specifically stated it was an error for the U.S. and invalidated his claim in January 2007 that 9 of the warmest years in the U.S. on record were since 1997. It turned out to be 3.

 

The very first link you provided mentioned both the US and global temperature effect. Since then, both bascule and I have pointed out that we're discussing global temperatures. Bascule started the thread on the topic of global temperatures. To bring up US record temperatures is not on topic.

 

Wy are you flogging this dead horse?

[jryan]

The very first link you provided mentioned both the US and global temperature effect. Since then, both bascule and I have pointed out that we're discussing global temperatures. Bascule started the thread on the topic of global temperatures. To bring up US record temperatures is not on topic.

 

Wy are you flogging this dead horse?

 

 

I am not flogging a dead horse, Swansont. My point in that second post was that I don't consider proclamations by Hansen to written in stone because of his history of questionable declarations and data management over the last three years.

 

If I were to post what I believe to be evidence of global cooling while quoting an expert with demonstrable bias and a history of bonehead mistakes you would be well within your right to question my assertion based on the track record of my expert on similar claims.

 

Just as I am also free to point out when Bascule claims validation of Hansen through comparison to HadCRUT3 and NOAA that HadCRUT3 disagrees with Hansen's GISTemp, especially in the time slice that this thread is dedicated to and NOAA has the same pruning issues as GISTemp (which both share a connection to a pruning of GHCN, their source data set).

[swansont]

I am not flogging a dead horse, Swansont. My point in that second post was that I don't consider proclamations by Hansen to written in stone because of his history of questionable declarations and data management over the last three years.

 

And yet what we've seen are numerous posts with the focus being the "hottest years" records, and not the underlying analysis.

 

And the error, of course, was corrected after the error was brought to light. Who has more credibility — someone who corrects their mistakes, or someone who steadfastly does not? (Which reminds me: are you going to retract your claim that historical statements are predictions?)

[jryan]

And yet what we've seen are numerous posts with the focus being the "hottest years" records, and not the underlying analysis.

 

What underlying analysis?

 

And the error, of course, was corrected after the error was brought to light. Who has more credibility — someone who corrects their mistakes, or someone who steadfastly does not?

 

Admitting your mistakes doesn't lend to credibility. If a doctor admits that he has botched heart surgeries in the past that doesn't mean his honesty makes him a dependable heart surgeon.

 

Faced with such a doctor it is prudent to thank the doctor for their honesty and find another surgeon.

 

(Which reminds me: are you going to retract your claim that historical statements are predictions?)

 

Wow, has your argument come to that? Which historical statements are you talking about? In general, historical statements of past temperature IS a prediction as we can always assume that future discovery will lead to a more precise value.

 

For instance: Hansens January 2007 declaration of warmest years had an underlying prediction and confidence level. It turned out that further scrutiny found his modeled temperatures were wrong. I'm sure in January 2007 he predicted his claim would hold up longer than 8 months....

[bascule]

Just as I am also free to point out when Bascule claims validation of Hansen through comparison to HadCRUT3 and NOAA that HadCRUT3 disagrees with Hansen's GISTemp, especially in the time slice that this thread is dedicated to and NOAA has the same pruning issues as GISTemp (which both share a connection to a pruning of GHCN, their source data set).

 

What? No

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

 

[swansont]

Wow, has your argument come to that? Which historical statements are you talking about?

 

Post #37

[jryan]

What? No

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

 

 

What? Yes.

 

Take a close look at the graph you just provided. That "WoodForTrees Temperature Index" (what ever that is) adjusted the graphs with offsets to bring them all in line. GISTemp and HadCRUT both were given negative offsets to make them line up with the satellite data.

 

To get Hansen's GISTemp in line with WTI (whatever that is), UAH and RSS the graph creator had to impose a whopping -0.24C adjustment to GISTemp, and -0.15C to HadCRUT.

 

Ergo that graph is making my point, not yours. Hell, if GISTemp had a -0.24 adjustment applied to it that would really change the GISTemp record table, wouldn't it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Post #37

 

I thought I had answered that before, but if that answer wasn't to your liking then sure, I will concede that that article was providing WMO weather related catastrophe data and world climate records in the same article for no particular reason while the IPCC, NOAA and WMO where preaching correlation between climate and hurricanes, and climate and floods, and climate and drought.

 

BUt even though they were (and still are) claiming a connection between global warming and drought and hurricanes and floods, and they were reporting climate and hurricane and floods they weren't correlating in that article as much as they were commingling.

 

The irony is that they, and most likely you, DO believe what I mistakenly read into the mesaage of that press release... but I'll let that one go.

Edited February 4, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

What? Yes.

 

Take a close look at the graph you just provided. That "WoodForTrees Temperature Index" (what ever that is) adjusted the graphs with offsets to bring them all in line. GISTemp and HadCRUT both were given negative offsets to make them line up with the satellite data.

 

To get Hansen's GISTemp in line with WTI (whatever that is), UAH and RSS the graph creator had to impose a whopping -0.24C adjustment to GISTemp, and -0.15C to HadCRUT.

 

Ergo that graph is making my point, not yours. Hell, if GISTemp had a -0.24 adjustment applied to it that would really change the GISTemp record table, wouldn't it?

 

 

read the links, the offsets are to account for the different baselines used in each of the models. the offsets make the data work from the same zero point which is what you want if you are going to compare them.

 

stop posting before your think. or try actually thinking in the first place.

[bascule]

That "WoodForTrees Temperature Index" (what ever that is)

 

Oh please, as if you're in any position to dispute the quality of my source material after linking completely unsourced climate science denial drivel...

 

adjusted the graphs with offsets to bring them all in line. GISTemp and HadCRUT both were given negative offsets to make them line up with the satellite data.

 

Oh wait, my bad, I thought you were arguing about a temporal incongruity. Oh wait, you were:

 

Just as I am also free to point out when Bascule claims validation of Hansen through comparison to HadCRUT3 and NOAA that HadCRUT3 disagrees with Hansen's GISTemp, especially in the time slice that this thread is dedicated to[/b'] and NOAA has the same pruning issues as GISTemp

 

Get shot down on one argument and you just worm your way into another one, don't you? But you like to pretend that's what you were originally arguing all along...

 

To get Hansen's GISTemp in line with WTI (whatever that is), UAH and RSS the graph creator had to impose a whopping -0.24C adjustment to GISTemp, and -0.15C to HadCRUT.

 

Ergo that graph is making my point, not yours.

 

The notes I liked are rather helpful in explaining the offsets:

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

 

Specifically:

 

Different baselines

 

Why 'in theory'? Well, the problem arises because the four series use three different baseline periods (UAH and RSS use the same). Here are the baseline periods as reported by each source:

Source Baseline period

HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)

GISTEMP Jan 1951 - Dec 1980 (30 years)

UAH Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)

RSS Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)

 

Now take a look at all four series from 1979 (the period in common), unadjusted, but slightly smoothed:

 

Four temperature series from 1979, smoothed, unadjusted

 

Clearly they are very similar, but there is an offset between UAH/RSS (which are roughly the same) to HADCRUT3, and again to GISTEMP.

 

If you think about the different baseline periods, the reason for this is obvious.

GISTEMP has the earliest baseline period, when temperatures were cooler, so its anomalies from this baseline are always higher. HADCRUT is somewhere in the middle, and UAH/RSS have the most recent, warmest baselines, so their anomalies are lowest now.

 

The offsets aren't being selected out of some arbitrary desire to see the graphs line up, but rather to account for the varying baselines so we can see the various anomalies relative to each other.

 

So sorry, wrong again, jryan (twice in the same post, at that).

[jryan]

Oh please, as if you're in any position to dispute the quality of my source material after linking completely unsourced climate science denial drivel...

 

Oh wait, my bad, I thought you were arguing about a temporal incongruity. Oh wait, you were:

 

 

 

 

Get shot down on one argument and you just worm your way into another one, don't you? But you like to pretend that's what you were originally arguing all along...

 

Oh Bascule, you're such a card...

 

The notes I liked are rather helpful in explaining the offsets:

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

 

Specifically:

 

Different baselines

 

Why 'in theory'? Well, the problem arises because the four series use three different baseline periods (UAH and RSS use the same). Here are the baseline periods as reported by each source:

Source Baseline period

HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)

GISTEMP Jan 1951 - Dec 1980 (30 years)

UAH Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)

RSS Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)

 

Now take a look at all four series from 1979 (the period in common), unadjusted, but slightly smoothed:

 

Four temperature series from 1979, smoothed, unadjusted

 

Clearly they are very similar, but there is an offset between UAH/RSS (which are roughly the same) to HADCRUT3, and again to GISTEMP.

 

If you think about the different baseline periods, the reason for this is obvious.

GISTEMP has the earliest baseline period, when temperatures were cooler, so its anomalies from this baseline are always higher. HADCRUT is somewhere in the middle, and UAH/RSS have the most recent, warmest baselines, so their anomalies are lowest now.

 

The offsets aren't being selected out of some arbitrary desire to see the graphs line up, but rather to account for the varying baselines so we can see the various anomalies relative to each other.

 

So sorry, wrong again, jryan (twice in the same post, at that).

 

Ok, I see my error there. I also see that GISTemp is graphing considerably warmer than HadCRUT for 7 of the last 10 years (by as between 0.05 and 0.075 in most cases.. no small amount given the scale of total change and confidence intervals).

 

Here is the plot I did: HadCRUT-vs-GISTemp

 

Relying on either one of them for a decade time slice is problematic, as is any 30 year trend line as it is all but meaningless for long term prediction (although the WTI mean line does help show aggregate agreement between datasets) and I still think that GISTemp is too high as is HadCRUT for that matter, just not as much.

 

But I will grant you that they have a similar shape.

 

And of course by playing with WoodForTrees.org I am, for the sake of argument, accepting GISS station selections. But I have already stated that I don't trust their station purging is resulting in data that is more accurate.

 

We can discuss problems in HadCRUT (and it's subset CRUTEM) in another thread.

Edited February 4, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

Aaaand we're back to FUD...

[swansont]

Admitting your mistakes doesn't lend to credibility. If a doctor admits that he has botched heart surgeries in the past that doesn't mean his honesty makes him a dependable heart surgeon.

 

Dependable ≠ credible, but that's not the point.

 

If one admits to and fixes their mistakes, they gain credibility in my experience. As opposed to someone who tries to cover them up and blames others for them — once you figure out their tactic, you can't believe them if they ever deny responsibility for something. I say this not only as a scientist, but as someone who works with others and has been a supervisor of others.

 

Everybody make mistakes. The person who never admits to making them is either lying or delusional. Is that credibility?

[jryan]

Dependable ≠ credible, but that's not the point.

 

If one admits to and fixes their mistakes, they gain credibility in my experience. As opposed to someone who tries to cover them up and blames others for them — once you figure out their tactic, you can't believe them if they ever deny responsibility for something. I say this not only as a scientist, but as someone who works with others and has been a supervisor of others.

 

Everybody make mistakes. The person who never admits to making them is either lying or delusional. Is that credibility?

 

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but when Hansen makes a declaration on temperatures in a region and it is later found that data in that region has an obvious disjointed 0.3 step increase almost across the board it gives the lasting impression that Hansen does no checking of the data at all.

 

I will grant you that NOAA and GHCN should do a better job of cleaning their data before Hansen gets his hands on it, but it is really all of their responsibility to check this data.. and Y2K error and Siberia are particularly easy to spot with even a casual check of the data. Three organizations tasked with collecting and evaluation temperature data missed a large error with a large portion of their data, and continued missing seeing it for 6 years.

 

The data error in the US is less about the impact on the global temperature estimate (because it was weighted away) but is more about the pecentage of stations used that were effected.

 

So I guess what I am trying to say is what good is credibility if the person remains careless? And can you even be credible if you show no signs of being more careful as a result?