It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data collection
stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near grills, air
conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys, etc. In other
words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat sources!

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm


> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
> well."

No. From the NASA website:
quote:
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of
the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive
warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the
data actually appears to be downward.
http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...

Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"

I hope they don't have a monitor at Gore's Mansion! All that Hot air would
indicate a global warming catastrophe!

"Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:tUhvi.180$vw7.11@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data
> collection stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near
> grills, air conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys, etc.
> In other words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat
> sources!
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm
>
>
>> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
>> well."
>
> No. From the NASA website:
> quote:
> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of
> the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive
> warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the
> data actually appears to be downward.
> http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...
>
> Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"
>

On 2007-08-11 05:25:04 -0700, "Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> said:

> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data collection
> stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near grills, air
> conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys, etc. In other
> words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat sources!
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm

Sounds
>
very much like a post I made several weeks ago.

I'm not surprised.

"Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:tUhvi.180$vw7.11@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data
> collection stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near
> grills, air conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys, etc.
> In other words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat
> sources!
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm

Climate researchers have been aware of this and, so far as I know, attempt
to take these problems into account to avoid erroneous conclusions.

>> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
>> well."
>
> No. From the NASA website:
> quote:
> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of
> the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive
> warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the
> data actually appears to be downward.
> http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...
>
> Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"

No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using earlier
data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on getting
very accurate satellite data.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-08-11 15:06:12 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:

> "Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
> news:tUhvi.180$vw7.11@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
>> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data
>> collection stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near
>> grills, air conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys, etc.
>> In other words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat
>> sources!
>>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm

Climate
>>
> researchers have been aware of this and, so far as I know, attempt
> to take these problems into account to avoid erroneous conclusions.
>
>>> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
>>> well."
>>
>> No. From the NASA website:
>> quote:
>> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of
>> the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive
>> warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the
>> data actually appears to be downward.
>> http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...
>>
>> Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using earlier
> data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on getting
> very accurate satellite data.

But others have cited, many times since 1997, the same problems of accuracy
from ground-based data.

It doesn't take too much logical thought to consider man-made materials and
construction mass, and how it affects temperature readings.

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:f9lfen$cda$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2007-08-11 15:06:12 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:
>
>> "Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
>> news:tUhvi.180$vw7.11@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
>>> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data
>>> collection stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near
>>> grills, air conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys,
>>> etc.
>>> In other words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat
>>> sources!
>>>
>>> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm
>
> Climate
>>>
>> researchers have been aware of this and, so far as I know, attempt
>> to take these problems into account to avoid erroneous conclusions.
>>
>>>> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
>>>> well."
>>>
>>> No. From the NASA website:
>>> quote:
>>> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
>>> of
>>> the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
>>> definitive
>>> warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the
>>> data actually appears to be downward.
>>> http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...
>>>
>>> Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"
>>
>> No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using
>> earlier
>> data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on getting
>> very accurate satellite data.
>
> But others have cited, many times since 1997, the same problems of
> accuracy
> from ground-based data.
>
> It doesn't take too much logical thought to consider man-made materials
> and
> construction mass, and how it affects temperature readings.
>
>

But which ones are erroneous and which ones are good and how do you adjust
for this? They abandoned the checks!

On 2007-08-11 17:51:41 -0700, "Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> said:

> But which ones are erroneous and which ones are good and how do you adjust
> for this? They abandoned the checks!

There's the rub, right?

And this doesn't even take into consideration the accuracy of readings
done decades ago.

The sheep are easily led into believing without question.

"Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:xQsvi.339$924.214@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
> "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
> news:f9lfen$cda$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 2007-08-11 15:06:12 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:
>>> "Mike Dobony" <sword@notasarian-host.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tUhvi.180$vw7.11@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> It seems that the data used to prove global warming is corrupted by
>>>> inappropriate monitoring positions. Many of the land based data
>>>> collection stations are set up in totally inappropriate positions, near
>>>> grills, air conditioner condensers, jet exhaust, operation chimneys,
>>>> etc.
>>>> In other words, an outlandish number are located near artificial heat
>>>> sources!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal...rticle8347.htm
>>
>> Climate
>>>>
>>> researchers have been aware of this and, so far as I know, attempt
>>> to take these problems into account to avoid erroneous conclusions.
>>>
>>>>> "Satellite based measurements have shown an increase in temperature as
>>>>> well."
>>>>
>>>> No. From the NASA website:
>>>> quote:
>>>> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
>>>> of
>>>> the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
>>>> definitive
>>>> warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in
>>>> the
>>>> data actually appears to be downward.
>>>> http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oc...
>>>>
>>>> Can you say "FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!"
>>>
>>> No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using
>>> earlier
>>> data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on getting
>>> very accurate satellite data.
>>
>> But others have cited, many times since 1997, the same problems of
>> accuracy
>> from ground-based data.
>>
>> It doesn't take too much logical thought to consider man-made materials
>> and
>> construction mass, and how it affects temperature readings.
>>
> But which ones are erroneous and which ones are good and how do you adjust
> for this? They abandoned the checks!

How convenient for the Administration that doubt is cast upon the data.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-08-11 20:34:18 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:

>>>> No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using
>>>> earlier
>>>> data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on getting
>>>> very accurate satellite data.
>>>
>>> But others have cited, many times since 1997, the same problems of
>>> accuracy
>>> from ground-based data.
>>>
>>> It doesn't take too much logical thought to consider man-made materials
>>> and
>>> construction mass, and how it affects temperature readings.
>>>
>> But which ones are erroneous and which ones are good and how do you adjust
>> for this? They abandoned the checks!
>
> How convenient for the Administration that doubt is cast upon the data.

Would that be this Administration, or the one in 1997 when the article
was published?

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:f9lvg4$22b$2@news.albasani.net...
> On 2007-08-11 20:34:18 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:
>
>>>>> No, but I can say that second article is from 1997, probably using
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> data, and everybody involved has been working very hard since on
>>>>> getting
>>>>> very accurate satellite data.
>>>>
>>>> But others have cited, many times since 1997, the same problems of
>>>> accuracy
>>>> from ground-based data.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't take too much logical thought to consider man-made materials
>>>> and
>>>> construction mass, and how it affects temperature readings.
>>>>
>>> But which ones are erroneous and which ones are good and how do you
>>> adjust
>>> for this? They abandoned the checks!
>>
>> How convenient for the Administration that doubt is cast upon the data.
>
> Would that be this Administration, or the one in 1997 when the article was
> published?

The current one. The failure to check and audit the data is the current
story. This allows the Administration to keep the data in doubt.

The 1997 story says, scientists, working to understand the earth's climate,
have found anomalies, measurements that do not reflect what they expected to
find.

They've had 10 years to locate the source of the discrepancy and take it
into account (or change their models or introduce new theories about how the
atmosphere works to gain and shed heat). None of this is surprising and
none of it is fraud. It's how we move forward.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com