An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

Question 1: why did scientists think this? Question 2: why did they stop? Have you ever bothered to find out the answer to these questions? What mini-iceage? And I see the answer two Question 2 is no, you never bothered. I guess it's easier to deny reality when you don't bother with pesky facts, hey? The concept of a trend is too difficult for you, huh? Really? Gosh! And do you think these figures were worked out by real climate scientists or by fuckwitted climate deniers like yourself? For crying out loud! Are you really such a drooling halfwit that you think this is news to climate scientists? If you earn 1000 a month and spend 1005 what happens to your bank account? Non-sequitor much? Besides which in what possible world is a transfer from the massively rich to the poor a bad thing? Do you just not like poor people? Do you think they deserve to starve and suffer for their
terrible crime of being born in the wrong country? Yes, because of course those scientists earning 30-35k a year are shamelessly chasing profits while the multi trillion pound energy and travel industries that back climate denial they have no vested interest. Why didn't I see it before!

As Tanypteryx said: what the frick are "anthropogenic warming data censors"? I'll assume you mean ground based temperature sensors, of the kind used to provide one set of data of global temperature?There's no single reason why sensors were placed where they were. Most (probably) are where they are to collect data for meterological purposes, some are positioned by climate scientists, some for whatever other reasons. Why?Please don't tell me you going to repeat the oft stated lie that the difference in global temperatures can be ascribed to the Urban Heat Island effect and misplaced sensors. Phil Jones, arch-conspirator himself, actually performed an analysis excluding all urban ground based temperature sensors and found the same warming trend as elsewhere.

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

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.

"Documentary"? Is that any documentary in there? Or does it continue in the same hack job vein all the way through? (I didn't watch it all).