I'm Sorry, But Your Local Weather Guys Are...Faulted...Severely

So I'll be the pudding stick. From Wikipedia on John Christy:

After earning his divinity degree he founded a Southern Baptist church in South Dakota before pursuing a career in science and teaching.

I've heard that before, in the ID/creationist field. And:

Unlike some other major climate data sets, the satellite data are constantly being refined and adjusted as new discoveries are made in the relatively new science of remote sensing. Notable adjustments were made to compensate for the effects of orbital drift and orbital decay, and most recently to correct an arithmetic error. Christy and Spencer use intercalibration between instruments on different satellites to adjust for instrument bias, then try to validate their data by comparing it to data gathered by weather balloons and surface stations.

That's apples and oranges, and it doesn't fly in my book. Sorry, but the more I read about these guys and their work (more than I cared), the less I'm inclined to accept them as serious scientists. And I checked up on this Wikipedia claim, and it's valid (again, long reading on my part). Poor, poor, poor science. Granted, I just have a Master's degree in an unrelated field, but the problems are there for all to see.

And as for Roy Spencer: he supports intelligent design. That doesn't mean his science on the atmosphere is wrong, but it does raise my suspicions...and my skepticisms as to his being a serious scientist. And his work suffers the same "apples and oranges" problem of Christy's. Although, from what I can tell, Christy at least supports teaching real science, ie evolution, in science classes, despite his noted fundamentalism.

There are plenty of questions to explore concerning our atmosphere and its future. I don't consider these two's contributions of much merit overall, nor do I think our understanding is complete enough to warrant extreme government intervention.