Half of U.S. temp trend is due to badly placed thermometers and erroneous adjustments

Why do people automatically accept every news story like this at face value the instant they see the title? Most likely the story will have propagated across the entire right-wing blogosphere by tomorrow morning.

Have you looked into the qualifications of Anthony Watts? Watts is a television weatherman. He holds no known academic degrees.

Dr. Richard Muller, btw, has recently shifted from his original position of skepticism to a being supporter of the theory that human activity is a cause of climate change.

My point is that the right decides what it wants to believe first, and then goes shopping for “evidence” to support what it wants to believe second.

@Greg: All you have to do is to show one peer reviewed paper that shows by using the scientific processes that AGW is caused by CO2. I will forever shut up Greg. Will you shut up if you can not find one?

@Greg: See Greg, It only takes a man of intelligence to see that the stationing of the temperature stations does not meet the criteria. When the station is supposed to be on a grassy surface and it is on asphalt, that means the temperature station is not measuring the correct temperature. Anyone to include a moron should be able to look at the standard and see it does not comply. You can go the the WUWT web site and see for your self that the photos of the stations do not meet the criteria unless you are not smart enough to be a moron!

@Greg:

Many professional trained meteorologists and climatologists have known about the effect of reflective and heat absorbing surfaces on temperature readings for decades. Military meteorologists know that tarmac temperature readings are not going to give you accurate temperature readings which is why the proper placement of weather stations is crucial, and also why it may be necessary to relocate weather stations when new constructions or reflective objects are placed in their proximity.

How do I know this? During my time in the military, I provided spacecraft acquired weather data to base meteorologists on a daily basis and we often “talked-shop.” Any aircraft ground crew can tell you that working on an aircraft on a tarmac in hot weather can be flipping dangerous, and crew members have to watch out for heat stroke.

How not to measure temperature, part 62

Record highs? – NOAA staffers are beginning to doubt the accuracy of the measurement system

Like videos Greg? (We know you are notorious for not bothering to check links) Try this series on for size:

and Global Warming, Doomsday Called Off It’s created to help novices like you understand the how weather data is properly gathered and scientifically studied.

Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

LA Times Features Climate Depot: Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a lead author of the 1995 U.N. climate report, said he welcomed the involvement of another research group into “detection and attribution” of climate change and its causes. But he also said he found it troubling that Muller claimed such definitive results without his work undergoing peer-review.

“If you go into the public arena and claim to have generated evidence that is stronger than the IPCC, where is the detailed, scientific evidence? Has he used fundamental new data sets?” Santer said. “Publish the science and report on it after it’s done.”

He added: “I think you can do great harm to the broader debate. Imagine this scenario: that he makes these great claims and the papers aren’t published? This (op-ed) is in the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science.”’

Even some on Greg’s side are trashing Muller’s release:

Warmists’ trash alleged ‘converted skeptic’ Muller as ‘absurdly naive…rubbish’ — ‘Way over simplistic & not at all convincing’ — Mann says Muller all about ‘self-aggrandizement’

Maybe you missed this: MSM Finally Questions “Unprecedented” Nature of Greenland Ice Melt

“Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

More Reading: http://www.surfacestations.org/

If you’d rather hang with your fellow AGW religious zealots this page has links to many ridiculous articles by you fellow worshipers where they blame nearly everything on AGW: A complete list of things caused by global warming

I think they should more try to evaluate the wind factor implicated in those datas, and concentrate their search on local warming due to those they named although they forgot the windtowers in group of many,
surely doing their share as localy being a culprit on wind generating extreme effects for the states around
their vicinity which being winds are expanding to other LOCATIONS THROUGH OUT THE CIRCLE THEY FORM INTO.
as far as we know the global data are pretty accuate as far as they find to be now, but like MOTHER NATURE
always evolving many steps ahead of humanity, we can say that she will come in with her wisdom,
to proove us right or wrong.
just thinking

@johngalt, #16:

There has been no jumping to conclusions on the part of AGW advocates. The thought that increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of fossil fuels would eventually raise the average temperature of the planet was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Over 80 years passed before the upturn of the global temperature Arrhenius predicted was finally observed. During much of that time the concern had been about global cooling, not warming.

@johngalt, #17:

What is amusing here is that Greg is discussing the ‘lack’ of pertinent scientific qualifications by several people that are mentioned above, yet seems to take, at face value, Al Gore’s statement, “the science is settled”.

Al Gore is a politician who has attempted to raise public awareness about a scientific conclusion that has global implications, and to motivate a rational response to it. He is not a scientist who actually played a part in arriving at that scientific conclusion.

It’s really not surprising that Gore would be mentioned, because the right thinks of any climate change discussion primarily as part of a propaganda war. For the right, it’s not about establishing scientific truth, it’s about winning the argument. Winning the argument is about money.

What he really means by ‘scientific community’ is the cabal of “scientists” who push theories and hypotheses in order to garner funding, prior to doing the research and experimentation, who push the AGW theory as “fact”.

That, I suppose, fits in with the right’s goofball theory that nothing can be accomplished by government using public funds that has any merit whatsoever–unless, of course, it involves dropping a trillion or so borrowed dollars to blow the crap out of someone they don’t like halfway around the planet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Read more at the above link.

Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, the Koyota protocol was just another spread the wealth around effort. That was confirmed in on of the more recent climate conferences. How about actually setting up real temperature monitoring stations that can determine if we do actually have GW with all of our tax dollars. Just because California does something stupid, does that mean all of us need to follow suit? My mother often used the phrase, “If all of the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you, too?” I think it applies here.

If all goes according to plan, what’s going to happen is this: The United States will become a major coal exporter. China will quickly become our #1 customer. They’ll pump out the fossil CO2 like there’s no tomorrow, while we fuel a rapid expansion that will soon lead to their total economic and military dominance. Owners here at home will devastate the landscape and rake in billions from the process. Eventually there will be hell to pay.

That’s what the Magic 8 Ball says.

Hi Aqua and Randy and Nan,

With regard to the alleged impending implosion of California — we’ve discussed this already too many times.

Around and around we go.

We’ll see what we see, and, in the meantime, continue to enjoy our net $50 billion contribution to the Federal treasury (taxes paid minus money returned to the state).

Try tripling to quintupling the home prices in your respective states, because too many people still want to reside there, and see why it is that, for certain businesses, it makes sense to locate in a state where home prices do not make a barrier to assembling a work force.

Neither taxes nor state debt to GDP ratio are unusually high in CA, compared to the rest of the nation, and venture capitalists continue to pour the lion’s share of the VC money into startups located here.

Far more upper income people from Texas move to CA than in the other direction. Why should that be?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Randy:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm

And more Randy:

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pd

@Ron H.:

All you supplied us with is the same tired old articles that the AGW fanatics have been trying to push off as “real science.” Enough pro-AGW propaganda. We are fed up with the dishonesty and outright lies of the Globalist/AGW/UN agenda.

Show us the incontrovertible scientific evidence that unquestionably proves AGW theory. Such evidence must follow the same Scientific Method that real scientists have demanded for over a century for proof. Also include the evidence that scientists tried to disprove the theory, and where their experiments, measurements, data collection and analysis failed.

Don’t forget to address the Censorship of Skeptics and Climategate Scandal, and to explain why so many pro-AGW “scientists” conspired to cooked-the-books and performed creative data collection and discarded data that tended to disprove the theory, and while you’re at it scientifically explain the following problems the Pro-AGW “Scientists” and politicians are having:

The BBC�s hidden �warmist� agenda is rapidly unravelling
EPA Whistleblower Criticizes Global Warming in Peer-Reviewed Study
Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear
Vice-chancellor involved in Climate-Gate will not prove the science after promising government
Even the UN and the EU are wising up to the greenhouse gas scam, “the biggest environmental scandal in history”, says Christopher Booker.

The IPCC declares Greenpeace in our time

What only came to light when the full report was published last week was the peculiar source of this extraordinarily ambitious claim. It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar. The chief author of the Greenpeace paper, Sven Teske, was also a lead author on Chapter 10 of the IPCC report, which means that the report�s headline message came from a full-time environmental activist, supported by a lobby group representing those industries that stand most to benefit financially from its findings.

Not surprisingly, expert critics of the IPCC have been quick to point out how this seems to reinforce the revelations 18 months ago, which did more to discredit the UN body�s authority than anything in its history. At the centre of those scandals was the discovery that the more alarming predictions made by the IPCC�s major 2007 report � such as a claim that most of the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 � were not based on proper science at all. They were simply scare stories originating from environmentalist lobby groups, used in a way that broke all the IPCC�s own rules, which insist that its reports should be based only on properly accredited scientific studies.

Explain why many scientists are now jumping the AGW ship:
US physics professor letter of resignation

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

Nobel Prize Winner (Dr. Ivar Giaever) Resigns Over Stance on Global Warming

Giaever wrote in an email to APS�s executive director (via Climate Depot):

�In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this �warming� period.�

And:

Giaever was one of 70 Nobel Prize winners to endorse Obama in 2008. But in 2009 he was one of 100 co-signers of a letter to the president questioning his stance on global warming. In 2010, Giaever was quoted by the New York Times as saying global warming �can�t be discussed, just like religion.�

Then there is the continual disturbing politicization of AGW: Doctors urged to take climate leadership role

Explain this: Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism

In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming.

Almost simultaneously, in a Hobart casino, Greens senator Christine Milne was unilaterally announcing, on ABC-TV�s Q&A show, that the Government would be conducting an inquiry into the section of the Australian media that she finds �extreme(ly) bias(ed) against action on climate change�.

And explain how exactly the UN Security Forces will ‘deal with climate threats’: UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping

“The security council should join the general assembly in recognising climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism,” Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.

And this: Controlling the water supply is now at the forefront of the global political agenda
Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions

Author Michael Crichton noted the alarmist practices of the Pro-AGW devotees, and realized that there is a long history in the world with repeating occurrences of Chicken Little doomsayers inflating theoretical crisis’ far out of proportion, some using hysteria propaganda to further their political agenda. Which inspired him to write State of Fear