Global Warming...
 

Check this out...Some meteorologists questioning the claims made by the USHCN decided to inspect the climate stations used in determining the data collected by satellite and used to determine warming or cooling trends. This data is then entered into computer models to come up with climate models often quoted by Al Gore and other warming alarmists. There are 1221 USHCN climate stations in the USA. USHCN stands for the United States Historical Climate Network as defined by the National Climatic Data Center. Many of these stations have been in the same location for 100 years and serve as historical climate markers. As you will see by the links below a lot has changed in 100 years. Stations once located in open fields are now in parking lots and surrounded by air-conditioner vents.

Check the links and see for yourself. (P.S.) one of the questionable stations is in my home town and I've verified its location. Right next to a giant asphalt runway which has been expanded multiple times in the last couple of decades.

So far 40 of the 1221 have been examined many of which you can see are inadequate even to the layman looking at the site.

http://www.surfacestations.org
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Example Marysville station which has been around for 100 years. I doubt the cell tower, buildings and parking lot were around in the 1900's

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/ima...le_issues1.JPG

Here is the temperature trends of this particular station.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/ima...ville_plot.jpg

Even better...Check out the BBQ grill...Brick building and Air-conditioner.


http://www.surfacestations.org/image...le_current.jpg

:dh:

Perhaps such information would be better posted in this forum:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum// :thumbup:

LOL...I love how facts and reality get your panties in a bunch. Check out the station in Tahoe which has a trash burn barrel less than 5 feet away. These monitoring stations are linked via satellite and the information is taken in and processed as accurate.

Garbage in...Garbage out.

How do you excuse such poor data collection sites when the information is being used for such important and sensitive computer models?

shocker.

MrLabGuy,

I'm far from being what people consider Green. I drive a V8, a Harley and have two high performance cars in the garage. I don't believe in recycling (please see Penn and Teller's show BULLSHIT to understand why..)

And regardless if the "Green" paranoia is accurate or not, doesn't it just make common sense to take precautionary measures? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that is powered by wind mills and solar energy and by the currents of the sea, rather than with coal and oil?

Now I'm not suggesting you run out and by a Prius. But in my opinion, why not at least accept the fact, that if we continue to pollute at the rate we do, EVENTUALLY, things will get worse. And, if there is somthing we can do now to slow it down, then why not..

Even if we say to big industry, you must CAP the pollution you make at the levels we have now, isn't that better than letting them pollute more. There are alternatives and big business needs to find a way to make it more common/cost effective.

What if all taxi's, police vehicles, gov't vehicles, etc were hybrids or alternative energy by 2015. Would that be so bad?

My point is, there is no need for hysteria imho. But there is also no need, not to work towards a cleaner place to live.

B

So if the overall goal is to "protect the environment", what is sustained by simply having one country (aka the USA) promote these changes when other countries (China) don't follow the same practices? Guess I don't see the 'benefit' to it.

B-Line. Limiting pollution is a good thing. Quoting data from faulty systems in place to promote a green agenda is yet another. Carbon offsets are ridiculous. This doomsday scenario Al Gore and the Left is pushing is a total joke. Without China, any chance of us making a measurable difference is a long shot. Pursuing this course without accurate data and without wrecking the economy is a fallacy.

Your not wrong, but it's called a scare tactic and is used in EVERY single type of publicity/campaign technique. Statistics and facts can always be pushed to illustrate points as evidence for an agenda.

You may be correct. I am not on the Left or the Right. But I do know that watching those Polar Bears on the show PLANET EARTH, and seeing them swim 60 miles to exhaustion so they could try to find some food, made me feel as though, we should at least TRY to slow WHATEVER type of GLOBAL WARMING there may be, even if it's insignificant.

-- And as far as the China and 3rd world country polution points you made, we are the US and should at least TRY to lead by example. Don't you think China says, " without the US, why should WE try to stop it?"
- And, China is going to have to clean up eventually. It's too populated not to.

B

:rofl: believe it when it happens, right along with NK disarming and Iran using Nuclear energy for peaceful measures....