Probably because this one will be relatively easy to verify, and for other scientists to repeat the observations? Most of the "Global Warming" tests were done from urban areas, or from data that has been shown to be deliberately skewed.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dram...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarm...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-s...

It doesn't mean there isn't a problem at which to look. It means that people _will_ manipulate numbers to try to make their conclusions real. As an argument on the CH forums went, this is a slap in the face to those who insist on statistics to back everything up.

I'm not denigrating the scientists who have been making all the claims (much). They have to work with the data they're given by the people who control the monitoring stations and satellites. I _am_ pointing out that they should have been asking for the raw data in the _first_ place. So what that it's more effort? They're paid by governments, and are expected to get it right.

Do we, as humans, have a global problem caused by us? Yes. It's called deforestation and habitat destruction. It's also called pollution - air, water, and light. Do I personally believe that we're causing "Climate Change"? Only to a small extent, predominantly by the habitat destruction. I don't believe that increasing the growth of plants (increasing CO2) causes it, and I don't think our power plants are doing it - especially not the nuclear plants. Keep in mind that even volcanic eruptions, which put out more trash in minutes than we produce in years, only manage climate shifts for a few years, and only by a tiny percentage.

I think it boils down to this: Let's stop barking at the wrong tree, and shift trees at which to bark. If you want to leave people watching the other tree, great! We need the information, even if we can't change it.

(I'm not bringing up Climategate, because it looks like the biggest problem with that bunch of idiots was their constant refusal to honour FOIA requests, and refusal to present the data upon which their claims were based. Bad scientists, not so much bad data. Bad idea to let the main offender stay in place there as the head, even after chastising them for it.)