8 2 mins 15 yrs

This article by one of those nasty Climate Change denier types is a must read. He appears to travel around his immediate environs checking out, amongst other things, the areas where the temperature sensors which measure the suppsoedly drastic increases in our temperatures are placed.

Oh my. Well, there’s a reason why he entitles the article ‘How Not To Measure Temperature’. This sensitive piece of electronic equipment which feeds into supposedly infallible temperature models which organisations such as the US Government uses to promote evidence of Climate Change is situated slap bang above and between a very large batch of exhaust vents, aircon exhaust ports and in the midst of a group of buildings which generate even more heat.

Its almost as if someone deliberately sited the sensor to give a wildly skewed temperature reading. Who’d imagine such a thing?

Oh and by the way. I did miss out one thing. The article is actually called ‘How Not To Measure Temperature’ Part 17. Go read some of the other instalments, and spread the word so you can drive up the numbers who arent buying the environmental snake oil any more.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “Bang To Rights

  1. Well thank goodness for some random blogger. Because of course, scientists didn’t already think of that.

    It’s got warmer over the last century, folks. People who are still denying it are increasingly few in their lonely trench, much like japanese soldiers who haven’t heard the war is over.

  2. "For instance, GISTEMP uses satellite-derived night light observations to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data."

    We can massage the data as we see fit by assigning different classifications.

    "Since scientists started thinking about climate trends, concerns have been raised about the continuity of records – whether they are met. stations, satellites or ocean probes. The danger of mistakenly interpreting jumps due to measurement discontinuities as climate trends is well known."

    Really? S’funny then that they can predict all this coming doom and gloom after such a few short years of research, when you measure it against unimportant things like the life of this planet.

    "As discussed above, each of the groups making gridded products goes to a lot of trouble to eliminate problems (such as UHI) or jumps in the records, so the global means you see are not simple means of all data."

    Mmmm, enjoying that massage are we?

  3. DSD,

    "We can massage the data as we see fit by assigning different classifications."

    We can make empty accusations from a position of ignorance. However what you cannot do is explain how independent strands of evidence all tell the same warming story.

    Pretty big conspiracy. Even the met office is in on it. According to some of your fellow deniers, even the sun is in on it, and I don’t mean the newspaper.

  4. Noooo,

    I dont deny that there is some evidence that there are some temperature rises. What I do deny is that mankind has anything to do with it.

    It comes down to trust Frank. You place your trust in ‘climate scientists’ whose livelihoods (and of course power and prestige) are based entirely on what can only be described as a research industry. I dont. We’ve already seen what happens when science becomes politicised in this way with the annual parade of well-heeled ‘AIDS Researchers’ making their apocalyptic predictions about the disease spreading beyond needle-users and the gay community and how ten years from now the figure of HIV-positive people will be X. And then a few months later admitting that ten years ago they predicted it would be X today, and that its actually a tiny percentage of X but hey, they’re sure they’ve got it right this time!

    I dont pretend to understand climate science. I’m not a climate scientist. But I do know how to spot the meaning of a phrase like ‘corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data’.

  5. DSD,

    "I dont deny that there is some evidence that there are some temperature rises."

    But you just wrote a whole post to the effect that we don’t know that.

    In fact you just wrote a whole post insinuating that sensors were deliberately sited to fake a temperature rise. And yet for some bizarre reason you then insinuated that the data was "massaged" afterwards, even though that shouldn’t be necessary what with the sensors being set alight and all.

    "What I do deny is that mankind has anything to do with it."

    Why?

    "You place your trust in ‘climate scientists’"

    No I don’t. I haven’t formed any particular opinion about AGW, except that for a while now I check out what the denial crew are saying and it invariably checks out to be a crock of shit. And I am talking about simple errors of logic and fact that anyone can spot. I also notice that pretty much all of the deniers are opposed to the concept of AGW for political reasons, i.e. the perceived implications of taxes and so forth.

    Also noticeable is how irrational the deniers are, e.g. they will repeat already rebutted nonsense over and over as if they never heard any information to the contrary, like goldfish with a limited memory.

    "I dont pretend to understand climate science. I’m not a climate scientist. But I do know how to spot the meaning of a phrase like ‘corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data’."

    Apparently not. Because such a correction would REMOVE the WARMING bias you also claim is in the station data. Were there the grand conspiracy (involving scientists all over the world) as you imply, they wouldn’t need to do that.

    It couldn’t be any more obvious that you made your mind up first, and are now engaged in post hoc reasoning to justify your conclusion.

  6. Frank,

    "It couldn’t be any more obvious that you made your mind up first, and are now engaged in post hoc reasoning to justify your conclusion."

    He has learned well from you, hasn’t he?

  7. Ernest,

    "He has learned well from you, hasn’t he?"

    And your example and evidence would be? No need to respond if you were simply making it up in order to make a personal attack.

Comments are closed.