Friday, July 31, 2009

Because sometimes, things are too funny not to share

The End of the World by Fluid

I can never get enough of this flash video. It's been around since the just after Y2K and I make a point to share it whenever I can. The link is in the title, but here it is again...

As an after thought, this one will probably freak you out a bit...

You can thank me later!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Debate about my blog "Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?"

After posting this, a online debate ensued. I've made every effort to remove identifying info about my detractor. Those who took part in it, and know us both saw the exchange. It is a prime example of the overwrought blind emotion on the subject I cautioned against. Apparently, rather then feed me examples of places or information bolstering a counter-point, it was easier to attack my intelligence, sources, and research abilities.

Here's the exchange:

Me (Original Blog Post): Is the US Temperature Record reliable?- I'm concerned about how emotionally charged the Global Warming issue is...

GlobalWarmer2: @BigDaveGrizzly Climate change is not measured by temperature. Temperatures may be included in some studies as one factor.

Me: @GlobalWarmer2 It has been a major focal point for most arguments. C02 being another and full of as many holes.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2 Vast majority of legitimate scientists and peer-reviewed data say warming is serious. 90% united on that.

GlobalWarmer2: @BigDaveGrizzly Temp is injected into the argument because it's tangible & understood by laypeople.Scientific argument is not easy to grasp.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist @GlobalWarmer2 I could go on all day on that. Many are recanting now as a lot of the base science for it is being disproved.

GlobalWarmer2: @BigDaveGrizzly Like who?

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist @GlobalWarmer2 Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists/among her most celebrated scientists

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2 You need to read a little more widely, my friend. You are living in a small box, if you think that's true

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2 Please don't just quote me verbatim the lead of one random article. Do some real research and we can talk.

Me (in response to "Like who?" above): @GlobalWarmer2 @GlobalWarmerJournalist With only 140 characters, difficult to list, but check this out...

Me (in response to the personal attack as it begins): @GlobalWarmerJournalist I am offended by your comments. That is the very emotional response I caution against. I do my research.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2 Now your authority is a list of several dozen names on Wikipedia? is that what you're offering as evidence?

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist I rarley take things personal and in fact, assume by your response I am better read in this area than yourself...

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2 My friend, I have reported on and edited coverage on this for 20 years (NPR, Discovery, CS Monitor, ARPN)

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist The list was a response to the question of who r Pro Global Warming Scientists who have recanted based on reviewing the science.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist Those are great credentials reporting on flawed scientific data. Not completely wrong, but not based on proper scientific method

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly @GlobalWarmer2...and all i can tell you is this is not a serious debate in in the scientific community.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist In fact, it's becoming a more serious debate within the scientific community now as the data it is based on is being reexamined.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly I'm not going to argue the point. It's a Wikipedia list. Need i say more. Do some real research.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist So, you must have photographic memory & can recall all information you have ever read precisely?Wiki is best I can do this hour.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly hint: take that list, find out who gets research grants from big oil, or GM, or any other company and then get back to me.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist I can say the same for many scientists who defend global warming. Without their grant monies and funding, they'd be out of work.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly I don't need a photographic memory to speak with some authority on a topic I have been reporting on for 20 years.

Me (obviously annoyed now): @GlobalWarmerJournalist Without your resume I obviously am completely clueless and have no idea how to conduct research as your first response implied...

Me (still annoyed): @GlobalWarmerJournalist And of course, no one could ever have given you bad information. And there is no way your resources may have been in error.

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist All I am noting is, if using a proper scientific method, there is a great deal of room for debate. To suggest otherwise is wrong

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @bigdavegrizzly baseline starting point: the most authoritative report: IPCC report based on the work of some 2500 scientists/130 countries.

Me (in response to the IPCC Report): @GlobalWarmerJournalist Which was called into question. Rather than report only facts and findings, it was a collaborative effort including politicians.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly I've been reporting on it for 20 years, not 2 days, So any bad info has long since gone out in the wash.

(I guess I only ever thought about this for the last two days of my life and have never done any other research on it?)

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist The bad info has been repeated and perpetrated as fact. Only recently has the science been proven either inconclusive or flawed.

GlobalWarmerJournalist: @BigDaveGrizzly I give up. You clearly don't know much about this. Do some real research-or don't. Its all there should you decide to. night

Me: @GlobalWarmerJournalist goodnight

Did I just win that exchange? Wonder why he kept at me, rather than citing arguments against my data and examples?

We live in such a loving and understanding society, don't we?

Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?

I've made no secret about my suspicions about Global Warming and my concern on how emotionally charged the issue is. Unfortunately, when emotion takes over, science and common sense can often fly right out of the window. Now, I am not saying that we should not use our finite resources more wisely, even more conservatively. I am also not denying that less pollution has to be a good thing. What I am arguing with is the way these excellent points are being side-stepped or derailed by the sense of over-wrought urgency to fix this all yesterday because we're "ALL GONNA DIE" and the over-bearing attitude of the Global Warming (My bad, they changed it to "Cliamte Change") doomsayers. They are willing to push this bad information at the cost of jobs, the economy, and livelihood of all of us just because they think they are doing something good for Mother Earth. And woe to any individual who disagrres because, after all, "The debate is over!".

I received an email about the following from my Dad. I Googled the Author, Anthony Watts and according to both Wiki, and his own Blog site, he is a meteorologist and former Global Warming proponent. He, as a Scientist, decided to start doing his own research and found, as I did, much of the science used to argue for Global Warming is flawed. Here is the Executive Summary for the attached PDF showing an issue with a majority of the "1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service" used to gather/report historical temperature means and climate change data. Read the attached PDF and check out the website at for all the data and form your own opinion.

Again, here is a reprint of his Executive Summary:
"Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.

The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the U.S., many of them demonstrating vividly the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can be found at, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name."
- Anthony Watts
Now, I am not arguing against common sense. I am cautioning against radical and emotionally charged decisions and taxes based on bad data. With The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) in Congress, we really should know the real story before things get too out of hand.