"The government is not the final word on the truth.”

[healthmyths]

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend
But the entire premise of global warming is based on this published number:
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012.
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Then when you take in the FACTS that the thermometers from 1880 to at least the 1990s had these issues:
How well can you distinctly read the difference between 72˚ and 73˚?

Then when you have to write the reading down, transcribe, transcribe transcribe to a central data gathering site BEFORE computers... this is what you get:

Explain to me how over the million plus readings since 1880 that had to be handwritten data entries before computers could have been accurate to achieve the distinct 1.53˚ global warming?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

When it comes to GLOBULL warming the government is the last one I'd take serious..them and Al Snore

 

[The VOR]

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

Anthony blogger Watts. Solid source there. ROTFLMAO.

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]"

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

 

[DGS49]

Let's see...information is provided that basically speaks for itself, and you want to discount the information because there are advocates on your side of the issue who disdain the person who gathered the information.

But the information speaks for itself. It does not rely on the veracity of the person who published it.

Observations and written records from 150 years ago are of questionable value. If you disagree with that assessment, then disagree with it. What difference does it make who pointed it out?

 

[TNHarley]

Globalist warming is fear tactics.
Like now, the tax payers are going to be financing a few third world shit holes.
"Let us tax you. We can change this"
LMAO morons

 

[healthmyths]

Let's see...information is provided that basically speaks for itself, and you want to discount the information because there are advocates on your side of the issue who disdain the person who gathered the information.

But the information speaks for itself. It does not rely on the veracity of the person who published it.

Observations and written records from 150 years ago are of questionable value. If you disagree with that assessment, then disagree with it. What difference does it make who pointed it out?

Primarily because those people currently politically appointed are pushing an agenda based on information that was poorly gathered (as was proven by my initial inputs) and then for political agenda passing legislation that will affect ALL the world.

The GFC is a pot of public and private money designed to help poorer nations prepare for climate change.
Obama pledged last year to spend $3 billion on the fund by 2020, and he asked Congress to appropriate up to $500 million for it in 2016.

Funds for Obama climate deal survive in spending bill

The vast majority of congress that passed this foolish waste of money based on false numbers as has been SHOWN after the fact believed these false numbers!

This was the same process that Obamacare was passed. "46 million uninsured americans" was a bald face lie! There Never were 46 million IF people looked at how those numbers were pasted together.

So to with this global warming fraud!

 

[Claudette]

The Govt. and the truth??

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO.

Talk about something that just isn't possible. Good Grief.

 

[Wildman]

Anthony blogger Watts. Solid source there. ROTFLMAO.

kill the messenger, ignore the message.

i'll bet most of the people who know you think you should be nominated "FOOL OF THE YEAR"

 

[konradv]

Assuming errors haven't been getting worse, the important piece of data is the rise in temperature over the years, not than the absolute temp.

 

[healthmyths]

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

Anthony blogger Watts. Solid source there. ROTFLMAO.

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]"

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

So what?
I've provided the FACTS just as Watts has!
These are real life issues, not stupid made up claims!
When logical common sense observations that reading a mercury thermometer for over 100 years and then hand writing the results over and over will make mistakes.
So by putting thermometers in biased locations, reading errors and transcription errors EVEN NOAA admits the readings were biased!

Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

 

[healthmyths]

Assuming errors haven't been getting worse, the important piece of data is the rise in temperature over the years, not than the absolute temp.

NO the problem is measuring the temperatures in a biased environment WILL make the temperatures rise!

When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia

 

[gipper]

One would have to be terribly ignorant to EVER beleive government.

 

[healthmyths]

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
IEA: Hadley Center "probably tampered with Russian climate data"

 

[BluesLegend]

Is anyone surprised liberal warmers are trying to regulate the Sun and a planet that got along just fine without their regulations for 4 billion years. /eyeroll

 

[healthmyths]

Is anyone surprised liberal warmers are trying to regulate the Sun and a planet that got along just fine without their regulations for 4 billion years. /eyeroll

And you know this issue with recording temperatures isn't the ONLY problem I have with the globalwarmingistas.

How many people are aware that these people base increase in CO2 on the rise of global temperatures of 1.53˚ from 1880.
These same people that believe in this discrete increase in temperature evidently have NO problem though with the discrepancy as to exactly how much CO2 has been
emitted.

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htmlhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

Scientific American states in this link: How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

YET here is another "Scientific" source:
A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
Skeptical Science a biased defender of Global Warming fallacies says:
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."
A "gigatonne" is 1 billion tons right.
2,000 gigatonnes would be 2,000 times 1 billion (1,000,000,000) or 2 trillion tons!
Folks WHICH is it????
337 billion tons?
520 billion tons?
2,000 billion tons?

If these same people can believe that over 100 years millions of accurate thermometer reading and handwritten transcription, then why can't they come up with how much CO2 has been emitted? Don't understand this discrepancy!