Global Warming, The Blackout

The current thrust of global warming hysteria began trying to explain one simple set of facts-- surface temperature monitoring stations have shown about one degree rise over the past century. Not sure why the global cooling theory was advanced in 1975, but I digress. To accept the theory that surface temperature is rising, one must accept the fact that the data shows that surface temperature is rising. But what if the facts don't support the global warming theory? Where does the data come from, and how accurate is it?

That's where the blackout comes in.

Since about the beginning of 2007 a growing chorus has begun to question the data that proves the surface temperature rise. This peaked when a Canadian named Steve MyIntyre felt there was a problem with the data, there was a big unexplained jump in temperature at about 2000. It just smelled wrong.

The problem was, a lot of the current hysteria is predicated on the notion that we are in the hottest period ever. To maintain the hysteria it is necessary to demonstrate that something is happening, now, right now, and we need to do something about it -- Right now, can't wait, the world has a fever and we must get on the fix immediately. The fix of course, that would be higher taxes on energy, higher taxes on everything for the most part. The notion that humans exhaling is dooming the planet, that needs to be dealt with -- how no one has yet proposed.

But what if the "right now happening" is in fact an error, a mistake, either real or fudged?

There are enough suspicions around the behavior of the group(s) at NASA that is charged with producing the temperature graphs to foster that suspicion. For instance, why won't they release the software that surveys the 1221 USHCN stations and produces the graphs? It's not like it is some sort a secret that if exposed would doom the world, unless it's not right in the head and produces some strange results. But wouldn't software engineers be able to quickly tell us if it was on the up and up? Why yes, they would.

And then there is this behavior

Enter Anthony Watts, a meteorologists who decided to survey the temperature sites and see what was there. He enlisted a group of volunteers to photograph and document the various sites nationwide, all 1221 NCDC temperature monitoring sites. But a strange sequence of events began to occur. First it became obvious after a few surveys began to report back, the sites didn't meet the NCDC guidelines. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching civilization had put many of the sites in ridiculously unsuitable locations. Some of the better examples are on the front pages here, the site that is collecting up the survey data and photos.

Some of the observed anomalies are sites situated next to air conditioning exhausts, over hot asphalt, attached to chimneys, above outdoor grills, and best of all sites located at sewage treatment plants.

Then another strange event happened, a Seattle radio station interviewed the head of the NCDC, Dr. Thomas Peterson, and informed him of the volunteer effort and inquired about the problems. A few days later, the NCDC removed all website access to station site locations, citing "privacy concerns." Without this data, which had been public for years, the validation effort was blocked. No more stations could be located. The public outcry has got the data restored and the site verification continues.

Where does this lead us

If you are reading this and scratching your head in wonderment, you should be. A public government entity who has nothing but public weather data should be more than open with the public and more than willing to share it's secrets. We are talking temperature measurements, where they come from, how they are processed and how the graphs are produced, not some mysterious government program. Doesn't everyone have a calibrated thermometer?

On Thursday, August 9 2007, another strange event occurred. NASA quietly changed the data, revised the stats, which changed everything. Here is my post on that event. NASA changed the data, the very foundation upon which the current global warming hysteria was based. No press release, no press conference, no nothing, just a mention on the web page thanking Steve MyIntyre for finding the error. The drive by media followed up this game changing event by NOT RUNNING A SINGLE NEWS STORY ABOUT THE CHANGE. That's what you call unreliable news. Not one single story. The only mention on google news was a sole story by the blog American Thinker here and a follow up story here. News blackout, total, complete, nary a peep. If you were not a blog reader, you would not know the global warming world shifted.

If you think you are going to see the UN IPCC go quietly, think again. There are already rumblings that the US data is only one data set, albeit the 'gold standard one' and the rest of the monitoring stations worldwide also corroborate the UN IPCC findings. I would bet these other world stations could stand up to the scrutiny given the 'gold standard', don't you?