MR

Since there's been some debate on global warming on this forum, here's some interesting information on the gathering of weather data for you man-made global warming enthusiasts...

Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data -- MSM MIA

By Warner Todd Huston | October 1, 2007 - 04:47 ET

A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. It makes one wonder why?

Since global warming research often uses the suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, the accuracy of the entire theory must therefore be called into question as its conclusions are derived from likely false data. Still the MSM ignores this explosive story.

But, it is evident that the so-called scientific community has also ignored the arguments in this story as there has yet to be a weather station moved or its location and/or construction reevaluated.

Anthony Watts has a great website detailing the problems with some of these weather stations, but there are far more out there than the ones that Mr. Watts details. He cannot be expected to catch them all, naturally. So, this report details another problematic station. This one is situated in the Bandelier National Monument Park in New Mexico...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-tod ... ta-msm-mia

Interesting.

Some where in this thread, some one in some way will determine that global warming is actually all Steve Perry's fault.

Just my effort to save energy.




Cat

CatEyes wrote:Some where in this thread, some one in some way will determine that global warming is actually all Steve Perry's fault.

Just my effort to save energy.




Cat

You've devastated my beliefs on the subject.

CatEyes wrote:Some where in this thread, some one in some way will determine that global warming is actually all Steve Perry's fault.

Just my effort to save energy.




Cat

conversationpc wrote:

CatEyes wrote:Some where in this thread, some one in some way will determine that global warming is actually all Steve Perry's fault.

Just my effort to save energy.




Cat

You've devastated my beliefs on the subject.

It's a tough job ............ heheheheh but someone had to do it!!

Cat

Hey, whatever you gotta do to get the results you want, I guess.

RaiderFan wrote:Hey, whatever you gotta do to get the results you want, I guess.

And the Earth is flat.

And of course, 73% of all statistics are made up.

Marc S wrote:And the Earth is flat.

Yeah, if we followed the "scientific" method of the man-made global warming alarmists, many probably would believe the earth was flat and we'd also be living in a world where the arctic was covered in black soot due to the same crowd believing in global cooling back in the 60s and 70s.

And of course, 73% of all statistics are made up.

Way to disprove the article, there Sherlock.

conversationpc
Way to disprove the article, there Sherlock.

Merely illustrating that one can twist anything. Dodgy weather stations now...? Perhaps divine intervention would be more reliable?

Marc S wrote:Merely illustrating that one can twist anything. Dodgy weather stations now...? Perhaps divine intervention would be more reliable?

It isn't twisted. There are literally dozens of photos showing these temperature "stations" located in paved parking lots and other questionable locations. There was a similar web site with many more examples of this that was taken offline a few months ago. Not sure what happened to that but the way the temperature stats are collected is questionable at best.

Besides that, the article I quoted doesn't even reference any statistics, does it? It simply points out the ridiculous locations some of these things were located in.

Dave, ever listen to Mark Levin? I've been listening to him. Brilliant and a funny guy.

Global warming is caused by beer farts. That is a known fact.

conversationpc
It isn't twisted. There are literally dozens of photos showing these temperature "stations" located in paved parking lots and other questionable locations. There was a similar web site with many more examples of this that was taken offline a few months ago. Not sure what happened to that but the way the temperature stats are collected is questionable at best.

Location of certain sensors I'm sure is questionable and thats a discussion about peripheral detail - its just the insinuation that GW is somehow not man-made and its just beelzebub disguised as Al Gore (or whoever is the environmental hate figure?) peddling all of this nonsense to stop middle America driving SUVs? I am still generally persuaded completely to the contrary and the vast majority of world science falls that way too.

Besides that, the article I quoted doesn't even reference any statistics, does it? It simply points out the ridiculous locations some of these things were located in.

Not meant to be taken literally - just poking a little fun....

Unfortunately, my bed calls, damn GMT always ruins a good banter....

Marc S wrote:Location of certain sensors I'm sure is questionable and thats a discussion about peripheral detail - its just the insinuation that GW is somehow not man-made and its just beelzebub disguised as Al Gore (or whoever is the environmental hate figure?) peddling all of this nonsense to stop middle America driving SUVs? I am still generally persuaded completely to the contrary and the vast majority of world science falls that way too.

Sorry, it's not a vast majority as far as I've been able to tell. There are literally thousands of geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who believe otherwise. Even some of those who were referenced on the infamous U.N. climate report don't fully agree with many of the conclusions that were supposedly reached. Besides that, vast majorities have been wrong before.

Sure, man-made global warming alarmists always CLAIM that the vast majority of scientists believe that man is the major cause but they typically fail to actually produce numbers that prove their claim and, like you said, statistics can be manipulated rather easily depending on how they were gathered.

conversationpc wrote:

Marc S wrote:Location of certain sensors I'm sure is questionable and thats a discussion about peripheral detail - its just the insinuation that GW is somehow not man-made and its just beelzebub disguised as Al Gore (or whoever is the environmental hate figure?) peddling all of this nonsense to stop middle America driving SUVs? I am still generally persuaded completely to the contrary and the vast majority of world science falls that way too.

Sorry, it's not a vast majority as far as I've been able to tell. There are literally thousands of geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who believe otherwise. Even some of those who were referenced on the infamous U.N. climate report don't fully agree with many of the conclusions that were supposedly reached. Besides that, vast majorities have been wrong before.

Sure, man-made global warming alarmists always CLAIM that the vast majority of scientists believe that man is the major cause but they typically fail to actually produce numbers that prove their claim and, like you said, statistics can be manipulated rather easily depending on how they were gathered.

Plus when you consider when people from the likes of the weather channel suggest that those meteorologists who don't agree should be blackballed, you can understand why "warming deniers" would be hesitant to speak their true beliefs.

RaiderFan wrote:Plus when you consider when people from the likes of the weather channel suggest that those meteorologists who don't agree should be blackballed, you can understand why "warming deniers" would be hesitant to speak their true beliefs.

The pressure being put on people to conform to this new religion is unbelievable. As an example, Robert Kennedy referred to people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc., as traitors simply because they don't believe in man-made global warming.

Thanks to Marc S for bringing the "flat earther" comment into this, because the man-made global warming alarmists want you to take this crap by faith and will demonize you if you don't believe, lock, stock, and barrel.

Here are some interesting quotes from an article entitled "In Global Warming We Trust" by Marc Morano...

MIT scientist Richard Lindzen..."Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm

Why are you all still bickering over global warming when any idiot knows we'll all be frozen to death in the next ice age in 2020

It doesn't take a genius to see that glaciers on land have shrunken dramatically in the last 100 years...the photos prove it. A trip to the northern and southern extremes, would allow us to see that enormous ice shelves (some that are as old as 500,000 years) are melting and sliding off into the seas. When ice melts into water it expands...leading the water levels in the seas to rise. Low-lying coastal areas around the world will be flooded. This is fact. Tuvaluans are already about to lose their island in the South Pacific, so many have moved to New Zealand as "climate refugees." We can haggle over the rate of climate change all we want, but it is all but obvious except to those who perhaps don't want to change their lifestyles, that in the last 100 years carbon emissions occurring from man's use of fossil fuels has caused the Earth's temperature to rise 3-5 degrees. Americans drive larger cars than their counterparts in both Asia and Europe. The U.S. was the only attending country to not sign the global warming treaty. We already have the technology to do away most of our use of fossil fuels, yet we don't use them on a large scale.

By placing windmill farms on unoccupied areas of the west, we could produce enough electricity for the U.S.'s needs, thus eliminating the burning of oil and natural gas, and the U.S. of nuclear power. Ethanol made from switchgrass, rather than corn, plus electricity, could supply all the power we need to operate the types of automobiles that we already drive. Electricity produced from clean, alternative energy sources, for short low velocity trips, switchgrass-ethanol (which still produces greenhouse gasses, but much less than gasoline) for longer high velocity trips.

The old days of alternative energy being "too expensive" are over. For example, a house in the southern U.S. with solar panels installed will pay for the cost of those solar panels in just twelve years from energy savings. In much of the south, an energy surplus would be generated in which electricity would actually be provided by the homeowner to the power grid, causing electricity companies to pay the homeowner. This length of time to recoup the investment will continue to decrease as ever cheaper photo-voltaic film is being produced.

Everyone knows the power of the oil companies, but even farm politics is standing in the way of energy progress. Corn is the main source of ethanol right now, though switchgrass is less expensive. This caused a spike in the cost of corn, leading recently to surging dairy prices in the U.S. and food shortages in Latin America as tortilla prices rose more than 50%.

Alternative energy is not only sound environmental policy but also for national security, of which economic concerns are a key component. Dependence on oil has created a destabilizing effect. China's economic gains have been remarkable since the government liberalized its economy. China has been gaining global market share, threatening to someday replace the U.S. as the most economically influential nation. Right now, China's only disadvantage is that it consumes vast amounts of energy resources, much of which are imported. However, China is in the process of building the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, called "Three Gorges." When completed, it will provide all of the electricity that China needs, not to mention provide protection from floods for some of its largest industrial cities. China could reinvest some of its eventual energy savings back into the production process, allowing it to manufacture higher quality products and more advanced technologies. Its takeover of the global market would be nearly complete.

Brazil is the leader in ethanol production, Europe in the development geothermal and oceanic energy sources. I fear that the U.S. is falling behind in the development of alternative energy because of a failed policy based on petroleum dependence. The U.S. is hoarding its strategic oil reserves. There is enough shale under the Rocky Mountains that, if it were economically feasible today to extract the oil from the shale, would place the U.S. at number one in the world in terms of oil reserves, ahead of even Saudi Arabia. I hope that the U.S. is not gambling on U.S. petroleum dominance for the future. It would only be short term dominance and speed up climate change.

Calbear94 wrote:It doesn't take a genius to see that glaciers on land have shrunken dramatically in the last 100 years...the photos prove it. A trip to the northern and southern extremes, would allow us to sheet that enormous ice shelves (some that are as old as 500,000 years are melting and sliding off into the seas). When ice melts into water it expands...leading the water levels in the seas to rise. This is fact. Tuvaluans are about to lose their island in the South Pacific, so many have moved to New Zealand as "climate refugees." We can haggle over the rate of climate change all we want, but it is all but obvious except to those who perhaps don't want to change their lifestyles, that in the last 100 years carbon emissions occurring from man's use of fossil fuels has caused the Earth's temperature to warm. Americans drive larger cars than the counterparts in both Asia and Europe. The U.S. was the only attending country to not sign the global warming treaty. We already have the technology to do away most of our use of fossil fuels, yet we don't use them on a large scale.

The issue isn't whether or not there is global warming. The issue is whether or not it's caused by man. The science is nowhere close to being settled like the Man-Made Global Warming Priests would have you believe.

By placing windmill farms on unoccupied areas of the west, we could produce enough electricity for the U.S. needs, thus eliminating the burning of oil and natural gas, and the U.S. of nuclear power. Ethanol made from switchgrass, rather than corn, plus electricity, could supply all the power we need to operate the types of automobiles that we already drive. Electricity produced from clean, alternative energy sources, for short low velocity trips, switchgrass-ethanol (which still produces greenhouse gasses, but much less than gasoline) for longer high velocity trips...

This is a totally different argument and I don't think anyone is against finding alternative sources of energy. Also, there is reason to believe that the development and refinement of ethanol is actually more damaging to the environment than it is to make gasoline from oil.

Here's a speech by author of "Jurassic Park" Michael Crichton making the same comparison. He started looking into global warming for a book he was writing called, "State of Fear". He wanted evidence to make an exciting fictional book about global warming. But as he did more research he realized that the whole idea was just too absurd and ridiculous to even put his name on. Great read.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-e ... igion.html

conversationpc wrote:Thanks to Marc S for bringing the "flat earther" comment into this, because the man-made global warming alarmists want you to take this crap by faith and will demonize you if you don't believe, lock, stock, and barrel.

Here are some interesting quotes from an article entitled "In Global Warming We Trust" by Marc Morano...

MIT scientist Richard Lindzen..."Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm

conversationpc wrote:The issue isn't whether or not there is global warming. The issue is whether or not it's caused by man. The science is nowhere close to being settled like the Man-Made Global Warming Priests would have you believe.

This is false. The greenhouse effect has been simulated in labs....gases such as CO, CO2, and NO2 do trap heat. A certain amount of these gases are produced through natural process such as the decaying of organic matter. The Earth's temperature having risen more in the past 100 years than any time previously since this type of data was recorded is no coincidence. It is no leap of logic then to blame carbon emissions from fossil fuel use since the beginning of the 20th century.

By placing windmill farms on unoccupied areas of the west, we could produce enough electricity for the U.S. needs, thus eliminating the burning of oil and natural gas, and the U.S. of nuclear power. Ethanol made from switchgrass, rather than corn, plus electricity, could supply all the power we need to operate the types of automobiles that we already drive. Electricity produced from clean, alternative energy sources, for short low velocity trips, switchgrass-ethanol (which still produces greenhouse gasses, but much less than gasoline) for longer high velocity trips...

This is a totally different argument and I don't think anyone is against finding alternative sources of energy. Also, there is reason to believe that the development and refinement of ethanol is actually more damaging to the environment than it is to make gasoline from oil.[/quote]

No, its not. And you're wrong about ethanol. It produces LESS not more greenhouse emissions than gasoline. Its use should not simply replace gasoline, it should supplement the use of electricity (from clean energy sources) in automobiles. This would result in an enormous decrease in greenhouse emissions.

Calbear94 wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The issue isn't whether or not there is global warming. The issue is whether or not it's caused by man. The science is nowhere close to being settled like the Man-Made Global Warming Priests would have you believe.

This is false. The greenhouse effect has been simulated in labs....gases such as CO, CO2, and NO2 do trap heat.

Then could you explain these numbers for us please?
The atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, just shy of Venus's 96%. (The Earth's atmosphere, by contrast, is less than 0.04% CO2.) Average temperature on Mars? Eighty-one below zero.

RaiderFan wrote:Here's a speech by author of "Jurassic Park" Michael Crichton making the same comparison. He started looking into global warming for a book he was writing called, "State of Fear". He wanted evidence to make an exciting fictional book about global warming. But as he did more research he realized that the whole idea was just too absurd and ridiculous to even put his name on. Great read.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-e ... igion.html

conversationpc wrote:Thanks to Marc S for bringing the "flat earther" comment into this, because the man-made global warming alarmists want you to take this crap by faith and will demonize you if you don't believe, lock, stock, and barrel.

Here are some interesting quotes from an article entitled "In Global Warming We Trust" by Marc Morano...

MIT scientist Richard Lindzen..."Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm

This is about scientific inquiry and professional scientific research. Should we wait until there is absolute scientific consensus before we, as citizens of the world, do something about it? We in scientific community have settled on lesser proven theories in the past, but this one tends to push some buttons. Is this because of American pride, the undue influence of multinational oil companies, or some combination thereof? Why is the U.S. the only country to not take global warming seriously enough? Do we not want to be the big bad Americans anymore? Or, to stop having to drive large vehicles? The point of my alternative energy discussion, is to show that we already have alternative energy sources, that with more government support, are ready to compensate for reduction in oil consumption. Flexible solutions involving ethanol and electricity would allow Americans to continue to drive SUVs (though perhaps not the largest models).

And this is the prime example of why nothing will ever be settled or done about this problem. Neither side can concede that the other might be right in some ways. let alone either side coming up with any actual realistic ways of fixing the "problem"

RaiderFan wrote:

Calbear94 wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The issue isn't whether or not there is global warming. The issue is whether or not it's caused by man. The science is nowhere close to being settled like the Man-Made Global Warming Priests would have you believe.

This is false. The greenhouse effect has been simulated in labs....gases such as CO, CO2, and NO2 do trap heat.

Then could you explain these numbers for us please?
The atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, just shy of Venus's 96%. (The Earth's atmosphere, by contrast, is less than 0.04% CO2.) Average temperature on Mars? Eighty-one below zero.

Venus is 67 million miles from the Sun, the Earth 93 million miles away. Mars is 141 million miles away. The shorter the sun's rays to a planet the more intense the heat energy received is. Hence, Venus is a cauldron and Mars is an icebox compared to the Earth.

How do the CO, NO, and NO2 percentages compare?

chf34jmac wrote:And this is the prime example of why nothing will ever be settled or done about this problem. Neither side can concede that the other might be right in some ways. let alone either side coming up with any actual realistic ways of fixing the "problem"

This isn't about being right and wrong, I see it being about hedging for the future, not only of the Earth, but for the U.S. whose lead in the development of alternative energy, which I feel is crucial to its longterm economic position.

How can you possibly hedge for the future when everything that both sides says is met with steadfast resistance? If neither side is willing to concede that they may not have all the answers, how can any useful discussion about how to fix it take place?

chf34jmac wrote:How can you possibly hedge for the future when everything that both sides says is met with steadfast resistance? If neither side is willing to concede that they may not have all the answers, how can any useful discussion about how to fix it take place?

What is the "other side" saying? That we don't have to do anything because global warming is a myth? That's a course of non-action. In 40-50 years when world's oil reserves are used up, it will be too late to change. There will be economic instability, even more wars over fuel resources, etc. Continuing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn't make sense economically nor strategically, let alone environmentally.