Is the Quality of Weather Stations Affecting Global Warming Data?

[Andre]

It goes like this:

The thermometer in the MMTS shelter has been pampered increasingly with lot's of cosy warming gadgets like airco exhausts, while concrete removes the moisture of the soil evaporating and cooling. No wonder that it is nice and warm.

See what happens with a correctly maintained site:

Source:

http://surfacestations.org/

Why not join and take a picture of your local official weather station from the list here

Kristen has done so enthousiastically and these are her results:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.2
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.3

 

[FredGarvin]

Al Gore dies inside a little bit every time you post, Andre.

Keep it up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there anyone who doesn't already know this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Al Gore dies inside a little bit every time you post, Andre.

Keep it up.

So your position is that GW is not real?

I believe that the official consensus is that GW is absolutely real, and confidence in AGW is around 90%.

But who cares about what real scientists are saying, right?

 

[moe darklight]

I'm sorry, but anti-global warming people always change their theory. One says that the globe isn't warming, another says that it is but it's a natural process, others say CO2 doesn't cause it to warm up, others say that that CO2 does cause it to warm up but that we are not producing enough CO2 to cause it to warm it up, other's say the arctic ice isn't reliable, others say it is but it's something that naturally happens, etc etc etc etc

I can't follow something that is so inconsistent. If they're SO sure that global warming doesn't exist, or does exist but is natural, or whatever, then they should already have made a rational non-self-contradictory argument.

right now the argument seems to be: Well, we are positively sure that the globe might or might not be warming up and if it is then it's not our fault but if it isn't then it doesn't matter.

I think I'll follow the more rational approach: we are spewing a lot of chemicals into the air. We suspect this might be warming the globe, but we're not 100% sure what this may cause. we don't know anywhere near enough about the weather to predict what this can do in 10, 50, or 100 years. Better safe than sorry.

many environmentalists in interviews, if you listen closely, will say that the warming is only a strong hypothesis, but the truth is that we just don't know what could happen, and that's the scariest part. you can't be prepared for something you don't know is coming.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's more, Andre is not qualified to dismiss the science, and GD is not a theory development forum. This is nothing but crackpottery.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is the reason why this is posted here in GD (unless it was moved here) is that one is expecting that it would have the same level of requirements as anywhere else on PF? Or is this simply meant as a collosal JOKE?

If that is the idea, let me make sure that this false notion is DESTROYED. The PF Guidelines applies even on here if you are making any kind of scientific claims. And please post this in the PROPER FORUM from now on.

Zz.