Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[edthecynic]

Ummm, no we havn't. We've said that the warming had levelled off. It also appear that we are entering into a cooling phase, but we won't know that for sure for another couple of years. The Earth doesn't have a thermostat that you switch on and off. It takes time for trends to become apparent.

As far as the op ed that Muller released, I don't see anything wrong with it except for the part where he ascribes the warming to human causes with no supporting evidence. He is an avowed warmist after all, but when he gets the paper through peer review we will see what he really has to say.

The present decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, so to deniers that means warming has leveled off. Next, to CON$, we will enter a cooling phase of steady temperatures.

Mind you there have been no "cooling phases" for the last 100 years even though according to the natural cycle warming phases should be followed by cooling phases. For the last 100 years warming phases have been followed by level phases which are followed by new warming phases that begin at about the same level as the last warming phase left off.

And Muller is an avowed skeptic!

You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans. If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic? If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought. He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though. I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

 

[edthecynic]

What is the damage that "too much CO2" will cause? How much will it cost to prevent the damage? How much will it cost to repair the damage?

Until you can get real answers for those questions, we'd rather not destroy our economy.

You just want real proof? Look around you. It is there, not in any posts here. Or sacrifice all to the all mighty economy. Look. All I ask.

Point it out to us please. CO2 makes plants grow real good. That is proven. Your theory is full of holes.

That, like everything that comes from CON$ is a HALF-TRUTH.
CO2 makes plants grow better UP TO A POINT. Like most things in Nature, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing. CO2 and plants is no exception!!!

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

 

[percysunshine]

The present decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, so to deniers that means warming has leveled off. Next, to CON$, we will enter a cooling phase of steady temperatures.

Mind you there have been no "cooling phases" for the last 100 years even though according to the natural cycle warming phases should be followed by cooling phases. For the last 100 years warming phases have been followed by level phases which are followed by new warming phases that begin at about the same level as the last warming phase left off.

And Muller is an avowed skeptic!

You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans. If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic? If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought. He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though. I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

It takes a special person to place a hand on a stove and convince them self that they have their hand in a freezer.

 

[westwall]

The present decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, so to deniers that means warming has leveled off. Next, to CON$, we will enter a cooling phase of steady temperatures.

Mind you there have been no "cooling phases" for the last 100 years even though according to the natural cycle warming phases should be followed by cooling phases. For the last 100 years warming phases have been followed by level phases which are followed by new warming phases that begin at about the same level as the last warming phase left off.

And Muller is an avowed skeptic!

You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans. If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic? If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought. He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though. I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

You're not too bright are you? Here you go sport. Maybe next time, before you open your mouth and insert your very large and smelly foot, you'll check on things.


"Summary

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a network of weather-monitoring stations known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which monitors the nation's climate and analyzes long-term surface temperature trends. Recent reports have shown that some stations in the USHCN are not sited in accordance with NOAA's standards, which state that temperature instruments should be located away from extensive paved surfaces or obstructions such as buildings and trees. GAO was asked to examine (1) how NOAA chose stations for the USHCN, (2) the extent to which these stations meet siting standards and other requirements, and (3) the extent to which NOAA tracks USHCN stations' adherence to siting standards and other requirements and has established a policy for addressing nonadherence to siting standards. GAO reviewed data and documents, interviewed key NOAA officials, surveyed the 116 NOAA weather forecast offices responsible for managing stations in the USHCN, and visited 8 forecast offices.

In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."




U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

 

[westwall]

You just want real proof? Look around you. It is there, not in any posts here. Or sacrifice all to the all mighty economy. Look. All I ask.

Point it out to us please. CO2 makes plants grow real good. That is proven. Your theory is full of holes.

That, like everything that comes from CON$ is a HALF-TRUTH.
CO2 makes plants grow better UP TO A POINT. Like most things in Nature, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing. CO2 and plants is no exception!!!

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

Really? Show us a peer reviewed paper that shows the upper limit for CO2 use in plants. Emprical data only. Crappy computer models are not allowed as they are not real science.

 

[westwall]

You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans. If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic? If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought. He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though. I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

It takes a special person to place a hand on a stove and convince them self that they have their hand in a freezer.

No, just a religious nut.

 

[edthecynic]

You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans. If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic? If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought. He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though. I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

You're not too bright are you? Here you go sport. Maybe next time, before you open your mouth and insert your very large and smelly foot, you'll check on things.

"Summary

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a network of weather-monitoring stations known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which monitors the nation's climate and analyzes long-term surface temperature trends. Recent reports have shown that some stations in the USHCN are not sited in accordance with NOAA's standards, which state that temperature instruments should be located away from extensive paved surfaces or obstructions such as buildings and trees. GAO was asked to examine (1) how NOAA chose stations for the USHCN, (2) the extent to which these stations meet siting standards and other requirements, and (3) the extent to which NOAA tracks USHCN stations' adherence to siting standards and other requirements and has established a policy for addressing nonadherence to siting standards. GAO reviewed data and documents, interviewed key NOAA officials, surveyed the 116 NOAA weather forecast offices responsible for managing stations in the USHCN, and visited 8 forecast offices.

In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."
U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

And how exactly does that change the fact that stations located near heat sources produce lower anomaly readings?
It doesn't!!! Now take your foot out of your mouth and stick it up your fat ass!

 

[edthecynic]

Point it out to us please. CO2 makes plants grow real good. That is proven. Your theory is full of holes.

That, like everything that comes from CON$ is a HALF-TRUTH.
CO2 makes plants grow better UP TO A POINT. Like most things in Nature, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing. CO2 and plants is no exception!!!

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

Really? Show us a peer reviewed paper that shows the upper limit for CO2 use in plants. Emprical data only. Crappy computer models are not allowed as they are not real science.

Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.

 

[IanC]

ed said-

Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.

do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?

 

[gslack]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

Ah yes from the Great Gizmodo... yes that Bastian of .... What exactly?

Exactly what makes that scientists a vocal skeptic? I have never heard of him, and frankly I don't think a study by a group dedicated to furthering AGW theory based out of Berkley is the final word on this...

Now I will have to completely show the bullshit in that article...

The article mentions the study is from Berkeley Earth Project. and I followed that link. it gave me the ecomentalists vibe SO I looked at their "about us" page. And when I went I saw it was just names of people involved and links to them or stuff about them. SO I went to the first ones link, and guess what I found? A mention of his company named Muller & Associates Now can you guess what they do? Please follow the links and see the steps I took and see for yourself...

Yep.. Thats right he is the head guy at a sustainability consulting firm.. Sustainability... Thats the new term they are pushing, its kind of nicer than saying going green or ECO-friendly... From their site...

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."

So your source linked to a science front-group for a Eco-consulting firm and had the unmitigated gall to call it science.... WTH?

This is the kind of crap that makes me the maddest in all of this.. Its the rise of anti-science and it fuels masses of ignorance... All of those scientists involved are no more scientific than the Pope... The fact is they used the university and any funds it may have gotten for research from the government to reach a specific and desired outcome all to further their own business.... And you people take issue with the heartland institute?

LOL pot, meet kettle...

 

[edthecynic]

ed said-

Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.

do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?

No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?

 

[IanC]

ed said-

Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.

do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?

No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?

hahahaha. wow, you're really reaching there. irrigation is much more of a problem than drainage in most cases. looks like you have come up with yet another multi-million dollar proposal for climate change study though.

 

[IanC]

ed said-

Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.

do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?

No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?

does that mean you are arguing that CO2 in this case is a negative feedback to warming because the plants are putting less water vapour into the air?

 

[skookerasbil]

Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution comes down to protecting the economy and profit, not some niggling obsession on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen? THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better try.

another perfect example of liberal thinking. The necessary tradeoff dynamic just cant be comprehended by these people.

Thankfully, the rest of us can, thus, the attitude of the country for going green is "meh". Which is why I say............nobody cares about the science.



Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries
by Joel Kotkin 09/27/2011


In his new book, The Coming Jobs War, Gallup CEO James Clifton defines what he calls an “all-out global war for good jobs.” Clifton envisions a world-wide struggle for new, steady employment, with the looming threat of “suffering, instability, chaos and eventually revolution” for those who fail to secure new economic opportunities.

In the U.S., this conflict can be seen as a kind of new war battle the states, each fighting not only for employment but for jobs that pay enough to support a middle-class lifestyle.

My colleagues at Praxis Strategy Group and I have looked over data for the period after the economy started to weaken in 2006. Using stats from EMSI, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we compared sectors by growth, and then by average salary.

Not surprisingly “recession-proof” fields such as health care and education expanded some 11% over the past five years. More inexplicably, given its role in detonating the Great Recession, the financial sector expanded some 10%.

But the biggest growth by far has taken place in the mining, oil and natural gas industries, where jobs expanded by 60%, creating a total of 500,000 new jobs. While that number is not as large as those generated by health care or education, the quality of these jobs are far higher. The average job in conventional energy pays about $100,000 annually — about $20,000 more than finance or professional services pay. The wages are more than twice as high as those in either health or education.


Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries | Newgeography.com





This is why I can come in here and constantly laugh my balls off. Because all the assholes pushing this hockey stick garbage dont seem to get that for all intents and purposes..........nobody gives a rats ass. Its so crystal clear its laughable. For the deniers...........how do we know we're winning? Because the responses to providing links showing the science is mattering are invariably nothing but personal attacks. Which I love by the way............simply more fodder for pronounced levels of pwn from the deniers.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well..........in the interest of fairness, I will point out that in terms of pissing contests on the topic of published literature, the k00ks have the edge..............

But as the scoreboard clearly displays above...........not winning.



Its 2011 s0ns!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

ed said-do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?

No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?

does that mean you are arguing that CO2 in this case is a negative feedback to warming because the plants are putting less water vapour into the air?

Gee, no surprise CON$ are ass backwards!

As an increase in carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants, global warming increases.

 

[westwall]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

Ah yes from the Great Gizmodo... yes that Bastian of .... What exactly?

Exactly what makes that scientists a vocal skeptic? I have never heard of him, and frankly I don't think a study by a group dedicated to furthering AGW theory based out of Berkley is the final word on this...

Now I will have to completely show the bullshit in that article...

The article mentions the study is from Berkeley Earth Project. and I followed that link. it gave me the ecomentalists vibe SO I looked at their "about us" page. And when I went I saw it was just names of people involved and links to them or stuff about them. SO I went to the first ones link, and guess what I found? A mention of his company named Muller & Associates Now can you guess what they do? Please follow the links and see the steps I took and see for yourself...

Yep.. Thats right he is the head guy at a sustainability consulting firm.. Sustainability... Thats the new term they are pushing, its kind of nicer than saying going green or ECO-friendly... From their site...

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."

So your source linked to a science front-group for a Eco-consulting firm and had the unmitigated gall to call it science.... WTH?

This is the kind of crap that makes me the maddest in all of this.. Its the rise of anti-science and it fuels masses of ignorance... All of those scientists involved are no more scientific than the Pope... The fact is they used the university and any funds it may have gotten for research from the government to reach a specific and desired outcome all to further their own business.... And you people take issue with the heartland institute?

LOL pot, meet kettle...

Yep, that's what I was alluding to with his "con" being different from the others con.

 

[westwall]

First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!

You're not too bright are you? Here you go sport. Maybe next time, before you open your mouth and insert your very large and smelly foot, you'll check on things.

"Summary

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a network of weather-monitoring stations known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which monitors the nation's climate and analyzes long-term surface temperature trends. Recent reports have shown that some stations in the USHCN are not sited in accordance with NOAA's standards, which state that temperature instruments should be located away from extensive paved surfaces or obstructions such as buildings and trees. GAO was asked to examine (1) how NOAA chose stations for the USHCN, (2) the extent to which these stations meet siting standards and other requirements, and (3) the extent to which NOAA tracks USHCN stations' adherence to siting standards and other requirements and has established a policy for addressing nonadherence to siting standards. GAO reviewed data and documents, interviewed key NOAA officials, surveyed the 116 NOAA weather forecast offices responsible for managing stations in the USHCN, and visited 8 forecast offices.

In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."
U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

And how exactly does that change the fact that stations located near heat sources produce lower anomaly readings?
It doesn't!!! Now take your foot out of your mouth and stick it up your fat ass!

Oh, did I hurt your widdle feewings?

 

[westwall]

No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?

does that mean you are arguing that CO2 in this case is a negative feedback to warming because the plants are putting less water vapour into the air?

Gee, no surprise CON$ are ass backwards!

As an increase in carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants, global warming increases.

Wow, you are a whackjob aren't you!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

does that mean you are arguing that CO2 in this case is a negative feedback to warming because the plants are putting less water vapour into the air?

Gee, no surprise CON$ are ass backwards!

As an increase in carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants, global warming increases.

Wow, you are a whackjob aren't you!

Wow. He's kinda weak when it comes to science.