Caution: Lying Crackhead Warmer *Scientists* at Work

Discussion in 'Environment' started by del, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

    Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

    Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

    In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

    Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

    The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.



    Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

    can someone explain to me why it's a good idea to limit the data?

    if i didn't know better, i'd think that an attempt is being made to skew the data toward a predetermined conclusion.

    that couldn't be, could it? i mean, these are scientists, right?

    they're dedicated to the integrity of the scientific method, unless it doesn't pay.
     
  2. concept
    Offline

    concept Evil Mongering

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,040
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    West Mi
    Ratings:
    +340
    Comedy hour. :rolleyes: That one sensor is probably located right outside the NOAA building's exhaust vent. :lol:

    Doesn't help when the "peers" reviewing these "shocking" findings are journalists or green party wackos.
     
  3. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,330
    Thanks Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,818
    if anyone can point me to the source, i'd be very thankful. i tried to locate the study on ICECAP and SPPI, and i cannot find it, despite the article saying on ICECAP and in the press that it is published on the website.
     
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,035
    Global Warming is fo'shizzle!! All ya gotta do is measure the places where it's warmer! In the Arctic, the scientists put the thermometer under his arm for like 10 minutes and viola!!! a warmering trend in the Arctic

    This science stuff is so easy
     
  5. Jay Canuck
    Offline

    Jay Canuck by Crom you'll pay!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,090
    Thanks Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +212
    I missed the part of the above article where the two American researchers divulge that scientists were proven as lying or show where scientists were smoking crack.
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,035
  7. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    Del,

    Its a good idea to limit data if you have a pre-determined outcome you wish to back up with said data. If you remove the data sources that contradict your pre-determined outcome the chances of acheiving that outcome are siginifigantly greater.


    Not that you didn't already say that, i just figured i'd make it more black and white for those with the blinders on ;).
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,035
    Obviously, the data sets not showing a warming trend are incorrect and can be ignored.

    Glaciers are melting like the butter I left it out overnight, so, therefore, we conclude that Global Warming is fo'shizzle.
     
  9. Jay Canuck
    Offline

    Jay Canuck by Crom you'll pay!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,090
    Thanks Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +212
    is that the test you took that makes you think your opinion on the subject of climate change is worth listening to?
     

Share This Page