An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

1. How do the remote sensors differenciate between anthropogenic and other CO2, etc? How do they determine which nation/s produce the most pollutants? The prevailing winds eventually carry the polution across the Pacific from China and other nations to the US where the censors would eventually pick up data, would they not?2. Blessed be the developed countries who send the air lifted famine relief, manufacture the water pumps, the electronic goodies, most of the food, the tools, heat and light our homes, the automobiles and all of the other nice things humans like. The question is whether the harm done is sufficient to destroy the planet.Objective weather scientists admit that it is difficult to calculate warming data so as to make determinations.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, do you even read your own links? If you actually did, you'd see that the pictures of temperature sensors that you've been going on about have all been from - as far as I can tell - just two facilities. That's two facilities out of the 54 in California alone, out of 1221 in just the US, from just NOAA alone. The source of those pictures is the US Historical Climate Neworks. At least part of USHCN's job appears to be surveying NOAA surface stations. If you'll look for more than 10 seconds, you'll see that those highlighted stations were being specifially cited as examples of known placement problems, as documented by the responsible organizations themselves. In other words, the people who work with this data know which stations have problems, and they actually can assess by how much they're off. What your're citing isn't evidence of willful deceit or negligent data gathering; this is a case of error correction.Wow, who would have thought that climatologists would think to check the reliablity of their data?So what you're looking at are problems from a handful of weather stations, which are only gathering data regarding one particular phenomenon - land surface temperature. This says absolutely nothing about all the temperature data coming from all the other sources in the world, nor about temperature data taken at, for example, the ocean surface or at various altitudes above the earth's surface. For that matter, surface temperature is only one factor in the vast array of other evidence that supports AGW, such as CO2 levels, emmission levels, changes in sea level, enviromental shifts, etc.And by the way, didn't you just say:

quote:

---

The debate is not so much about climate change. I'm not aware of any significant denying of climate change. The deniers perse are skeptical of imminent danger of anthropogenic CO2.

---

So a handful of known potential errors in some temperature readings supports your case against AGW how exactly, when apparently you aren't contesting the validity of temperature data anyway?Edited by ZenMonkey, : Spelling ang tpyso.

Sensors, Buz!, Sensors. A censor is someone who censors film, music, books etc., a sensor measures something.Anyways, pedantry aside, sensors do not measure the difference between the CO₂ we put out and the CO₂ put out by natural sources; nor do they measure the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere atributable to each particular nation. No. Those things are calculated by a vast array of different measurements.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

Your link does not support that statement

quote:

---

Q: Why is a TV/radio meteorologist and volunteers doing this job? Shouldn't this be the work of climate scientists?

​

A; Well it should be, but the USHCN has been established since 1994, and in that time, the NCDC scientists managing the network have not done this most basic of quality control checks; visiting each station, doing a photographic survey, and determining if the climate monitoring station temperature and rainfall measurement been compromised by any local influences. While there is a metadata system in place, it is primarily designed to show site moves and instrumentation changes. Remote data analysis and applied statistical techniques cannot replace basic observations in all cases. Basic observation of any experiment and recording of what is observed is the foundation of professional science practice. Likewise, sharing such data is also one of those tenets. Therefore during and after the survey is completed, the data will be publicly available for any scientist that wishes to use it to further analyze the data from these stations and provide appropriately calculated adjustments.

​

While a government survey program may take months of planning, months or years more of execution, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a simple volunteer program like this can easily and without taxpayer cost produce the same or better results, and certainly at a much faster pace. Hopefully this project can serve as a model for a future program administered by NOAA.
  —surfacestations.orf FAQ

---

Which rather suggests that USHCN is not doing what you are saying it is.Here is a link to NOAA's response to SurfaceStations.orgEdited by Mr Jack, : Added NOAA response

Hi Mr Jack. According to your link the modernization and maintainence upgrading funding just happens to apply to the hottest region of our nation, the Southwest. Isn't that convenient for the warmist camp? Perhaps it would have been scientifically prudent to spread what funds that were available evenly over the cold and hot regions so as to arrive at a more objective conclusion.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yah, I know. These senior moments are bummers. I had it right by the end of the paragraph. Better late than never. Perhaps the complexity of it all allows for a significant amount of leeway so as to follow the money, the planet's prestigious peer pressure and the global agenda. The disclaimer comes in the admission of the difficulty in data determinations.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Agreed, I seem to have not fully understood the tangle of acronyms and organizational activites. However, the NOAA document you're linked to actually strengthens my case rather than weakening it.

quote:

---

Q. Over the years, stations move in location for a variety of reasons and the local environment changes. If the local environment around the station changes could this cause a bias in the temperature record? Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?

​

A. A great deal of work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center have been at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and exposure. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard exposures. They evaluated urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations. [Emphasis mine.]

---

Also:

quote:

---

Q. What can we say about poor station exposure and its impact on national temperature trends?

​

A. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information
available so we conducted a preliminary analysis. Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its Page 3 of 4 annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends. [Emphasis mine.]

---

And lastly:

quote:

---

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?

​

A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in
mountainous areas, upward as well.

---

So NOAA appears to on top of things, and the volunteers from surfacestations.org have in fact not uncovered some huge mistake or even conspiricy in surface temperature data. Moreover, my original points still stand:1) The problems appear to be noted and adjusted for.
2) They affect only a subset of all the data input.
3) Even if this data were completely unreliable and discarded, there is an overflowing amount of other data that supports the case that global temperatures are rising.
4) Buz wasn't even contesting the fact that global temperatures are rising anyway, so how does this help his case, exactly?Edited by ZenMonkey, : Got name of website wrong.

When you're looking at trends absolute values matter little so the southwest being warming isn't a problem (although a reduced spread of data points is).I'd presume the reason the southwest is getting the update first is either because funding comes from particular bodies or because there's a reason to want better data in that region in particular.

Are you suggesting that because the science is hard it must be part of some vast global conspiricy under which all those green activist billionaires are going to take over the planet?By way of reply:

Hi Zen.Green activist sheeple aid and abet fat cat globalist polititions, central bankers and others who conspire to enrich and empower themselves, undermine nationalism and empoverish industrious capitalist free nations. All will relatively soon, become subservient to the emerging New World Order.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I really should have pegged you as a conspiracy nut from the start, Buz. "Green activists" are not a monolithic group. Supporting cleaner air and water, desiring reduced reliance on fossil fuels for energy, wanting increased shifts to solar and air power are all worthy goals even if climate change were compeltely and totally false.Not all of us are "greenpeace." In fact, I'm an immensely strong supporter of nuclear power as our best hope for clean, reliable, long-term energy. Most "green activists" would think I'm almost as bad as you for that. Really? Where are all of the wind turbines produced? Where do solar panels come from? Exactly how does lessening reliance on fossil fuels undermine national sovereignty?You;re an idiot, Buz, if you honestly believe that shifting to greener energy sources is nothing more than a drain on our economies.In factm the "fat cats" you're talking about are in the real world (as opposed to your fantasy land) oil barons and other preservers of the status quo. The Middle East has become rich by feeding the unsatiable Western appetite for oil,to the point where we currently base much of our foreign policy on that region. Do you really think the US would be on such friendly terms with the Muslim Theocracy of Saudi Arabia if they didn't have their oil fields? Would we be constructing military bases in the region if we didn't rely on oil?You scoff at a splinter in the eye of another and completely miss the plank in your own. Fool.You carry on with your drivel about how emissions standards and other green policies will strangle the economies of the Western world. You even suggest that reparations will be paid to poorer nations. You base this on...nothing whatsoever. It;s a conspiracy theory, Buz. You;re no better than some moron on the street prattling on about UFOs and the gunman on the grassy knoll. Do you get your ideas from the Weekly World News? Are you also afraid of Batboy?The fact is, there's nothing whatsoever about climate change that even remotely carries forward an initiative for a single world government, or reparations to poorer nations, or the decline of national sovereignty, or any of your other insane musings.The fact is, changing industry over to cleaner standards creates jobs and helps the industrialized world economies, simply because that's where the new technology is developed and manufactured. It;s no different from the other major changes to industry - the introduction of plastics, computers that can fit on a desk, etc. The emissions standards serve not to strangle business, but to offer an incentive to businesses based on cleaner standards. I know you don't comprehend natural selection, Buz, but this is simply a form of artificial selection, where pressure is placed to cause industry to find that green is in their own best interest. I'm sure. Let me guess - Obama is the Antichrist, he's going to bring the world under his single government, and then Jesus comes back and takes you away?Seriously Buz - immediately provide objective, solid evidence for your claims:1) climate change prevention furthers a one world government
2) green technologies enrich the current "fat cats" more than the status quo does
3) reparations will be paid to the 3rd world in compensation for climate change that you simultaneously believe is not actually happening...or concede that you are, in fact, an imbecilic gasbag who simply repeats whatever fanciful nonsense most closely matches your "end times" fairy tale, without any reliance on evidence, logic, or in fact even sanity.

Make sure your tin hat is shiny side out, Buz.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Nobody's demeaning alternative energy sources. I'm all for it, but reality is until alternatives become developed we have been rendered dependent on despotic and third world nations for our energy when in fact the greenies and animal rightists have managed to forbid drilling offshore while China sucks it out from under our shores, drilling in Alaska, drilling huge gas reserves, forbidding nuclear reactors, forbidding mining of vast coal reserves etc. This all undermines our national sovereignty as other nations whom we've become dependent upon tap all of these sources of energy.To rub salt in the wound, they want our taxpayer $$ to distribute the wealth which impoverishes us and stiffles employment, etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

But Buz as this signifies the end of the world and the final inevitable fulfilment of biblical prophecy shouldn't you be cheering this on with zeal and gusto?If this is what you truly believe I don't understand your objections? Surely the sooner the better?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World