I wouldn't worry too much about it - it's obviously some conspiracy nonsense that he found on another website and pasted it here. There are actually thousands of weather stations in the USA - more than ever before. And of course, data is always cross-calibrated against satellite measurements. So we have an amazingly accurate temperature record, nowadays.
I think he is also alluding to the urban heat island effect - ie. the fact that urban centres are now warmer than the past, due to increases in urban concentration. Which is a real effect, but it is accounted for - so that's a red herring too.
If you spend enough time and effort, you can invent a conspiracy about anything. Maybe evolution is a conspiracy by the biologists and geneticists?
Yes, but the trouble is, it is worrying.
Such lunatic rantings disguised as facts do a lot more than simply show up the writers delusions. They feed the vague paranoia and distrust of authority which everyone feels when warned of unspecified dangers. Its far easier, and much more comforting, to believe the nay-sayer, because that means you dont have to try and understand the issues, nor be inconvenienced by unpalatable advice.
And the parallels with the creationist lobby are very striking.
I'm not a natural conspiracy theorist. I think 9/11 was done by moslem terrorists and JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm also not remotely religious and I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution or any other aspect of real science.
What I do have a problem with is pseudo-science activists making up stuff in order to justify and promote their cushy jobs, research grants and their eco-marxist religion.
I'm not talking about the number of weather stations that are out there. I'm talking about how many they actually take data from for their modelling. I thought I made that perfectly clear.
If you remove the data from naturally cooler areas - mountains, rural locations and those nearer the poles - you will raise the 'average' temperature. It's basic maths. Instead they favour coastal, urban and low lying sites. They love airports - lots of nice heat island effect from the acres of concrete. That is why they can claim temperatures are rising over previous years and decades.
If their true goal was better accuracy, they would surely use the maximum number of sites to get the most detailed picture. Why then have they systematically dropped them wholesale? Well clearly if you use all available sites, you don't get the warming that you desperately want.
E.g. Back in the 1970s they took data from around 600 Canadian weather stations. It is now just 35. That's 35 from the second largest country in the world. Most of those deleted were from cooler, higher altitudes and latitudes to further skew the figures.
The Met Office do the same trick. Russia, the world's largest nation contribute their weather station data, but the Hadley Centre cherry pick only 25% of it. This is something the Russians themselves are extremely annoyed about. Why do they do it? Because just like every other criminal, they thought they'd get away with it. They never expected to have people pouring over their records and practices like they are now.
It's a classic case of garbage in, garbage out.
Personally I think the game is up now. Public opinion is already largely sceptical and it's just a matter of time before the whole thing falls apart completely. The leaked UEA/Hadley Centre emails and the IPCC Glaciergate scandal are just more nails in the coffin. Cap n' Trade is dead in the US Congress, although the stupid EU will no doubt try to keep it going here. There's just too much money in it for them not to.
Long term, it's caused a lot of lasting damage to the public perception of real scientists - and that's extremely sad.
Absolutely, so do I. I'm glad we agree on that. What I suspect we don't agree on is where those pseudo-scientists lie. The science of AGW is not pseudo-. It is hard physics. But 100% of the anti-AGW soi-disant 'science' I have come across, in this forum and elsewhere, is non-proven conjecture (ie not science), or wishful thinking (ie not science), or paranoiac anti-everybody else (ie not science)
Not really, I'm afraid. But in any case, what's the difference?
Sorry, but that's just cobblers. The 'basic maths' is trends: it makes no bl**dy difference where you get your data, so long as you compare like-with-like over time, and your allegations are not implying that they don't. If the Sahara's getting hotter, that's warming. If runway 28R is hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, that's warming. I simply don't see your point.How do you know? How do you know that the sites they dropped wouldn't show an even greater warming? If you drop data, for whatever reason, then it's dropped, and you cannot draw any inference from it. Unless of course you have a growing paranoia to feed.
See above
Source? More importantly, to take your own question, why do they do it? What exactly do you think the world's science community is trying to do which is so important that they must keep the world's population, apart from incisive thinkers with a true grasp of reality, such as yourself, in the dark?I agree, but for quite opposite reasons to yours.
If there was any truth to your theory of data massaging, then the recent satellite data wouldn't match ground-based observations, but they do. And since the approach used is the same, irrespective of when the raw data was taken, we have to assume the dataset is reliable for the entire period - even for the period before satellites.
To me, the point is that I thought we were talking about Global warming, caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
Your statement(s) are a classic example of how to get the science wrong. If, as you say runway 28R is getting hotter, how can you possibly ignore all the other factors which might cause this, and cite it as "proof" that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is the cause.
If we follow you reasoning, then we can ignore all data from any source other than temperature readings from known heat island sites, and this will be proof that Global warming is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. If we take your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, then we we could further reduce the data set to temperature readings from just one site, and use this to make conclusions about Global climate change.
You may think it's fine to reduce the data set if the results still fit with your belief, but if a different data set was picked which showed the opposite trend, you would be the first to cite this as bad science. IMO you are alowing your deep rooted belief to bias your thinking.
Global Warming: The Other Side - Segment 4 | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH JOE DâALEO... | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
My take on this rightly or wrongly is that if you want the most accurate data you should take it from a source which is as free of outer influences as possible. What if the algorithm used to remove the heat island effect is wrong? What if the reason for a runway being warmer is because it's receiving 10x more traffic than it was. There are so many variables to calculate. So you use data from extra-urban sites which don't need the heat island effect removing from them.
If however these sites are being used less then what is the reason behind it? Could it be that the data is in fact being manipulated at source? I'm not saying that it is but you have to agree it is at least a little bit suspect if what is being said is true.
Hang about!! I never said anything of the kind. Where do I say that an increase in temperature at any site is proof of GW? I was merely picking up your implication that by selectively excluding the colder sites from the statistics then the results would indicate an artificially high global warming effect. In fact, of course, they do nothing of the sort.
I was certainly not ignoring other factors, because I was certainly not citing the increase as "proof" of anything. I don't even bl**dy mention CO2. The point is that the issue is trend, not the actual temperature values. On that basis, it makes no difference whether the sites you pick are at the South Pole or Death Valley. I accept that the numbers of sites you select worldwide is significant, and it may be that the numbers are currently inadequate. But you have offered no proof of that, and it certainly makes no difference to the significance of the statistics whether the shortfall is in colder or warmer locations. For all we know, including more cooler sites may indicate a greater than expected GW effect. In fact, I believe they would, so omitting them might well be masking its real magnitude.
Yet again, I am saying nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out that your allegations that the reduction in the number of sites has over the past few years significantly skewed the interpretation of the results need much more substantiation. In particular, you haven't shown that the number actually has been reduced; that other sources (eg satellite observations) haven't made them redundant; or that improved analytical techniques haven't increased the reliability of the results. You also fail to show why you assert that the reduction in cooler sites is in itself significant, other than to throw a feasible-sounding red herring.
Oh, and by the way:
and
Not a natural conspiracy theorist; just picky about the ones you espouse.
DPin,
Er, excuse me but I have'nt made any allegations or assertions about anything. You are replying mostly to someone else's post. Try and keep up.
I merely commented on your post where you state that it does not matter which sites you pick, as long as it shows a trend. Although you did not mention CO2, the implication from you stance on this topic, is that if the trend is upward, it would be evidence of AGW.
In this respect, of course it matters where and how many sites are used. If we are to measure Global temperature and try to ascertain if this is increasing, what use is a selective data set for a restricted number of sites where all sorts of Local variables come into play?