Monday, November 19, 2007

Inconvenient Truth: 'Global Warming' Data is Invalid

The science is NOT sound! Invalid data collection means invalid science and invalid analysis and conclusions.

Story here.

Because the method of recording temperatures at most surface stations is incorrect, it cannot be considered valid. It cannot be considered as valid backing for the "anthropogenic global warming" theory, nor for dire fearmongering as to catastrophic, deadly "climate change".

If the method of collection of global temperatures is invalid, then all analysis and conclusions relating to all the data is invalid as well.

Sorry, AGW crowd, but now there's concrete scientific evidence that the science supporting the AGW theory is not sound.

The data is worthless. Now we cannot say whether the world is warming at all. To believe it is is to believe in invalid junk science.

Why should I believe in it all? Why should anyone? Just because we're being told we have to believe in it? What is this, a whole new religion? A cult?

WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.


The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

Sorry, but I just cannot buy into the AGW bunk.