If Global Warming Data is flawed, is the argument still valid ?

Question

most of the 1,221 weather stations that the federal government uses to gather data on temperatures are improperly placed and records invalid data. This data is then used to predict global warming doom.. oh boy!


http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Paul Hxyz - apprently you missed the point. The reason why the graphs trend high is because they are near heat sources (AC vents, jet engines etc), not because of global warming

Papillon Noir - did you expect the liberal teachers union to teach creationism ? - Evolution fits their agenda, and so does man made global warming!

Kawaii - how do you think i got to the website?..

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html

lltrix - when a blog says that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, it is fiction, but when rosie say it, it is the truth ?

xuserx2000 - Look at the ice core samples data again, how do you exaplain the hot and cold cycles in the graph years before we ever drilled for oil?.. aliens?

Answer 1

Garbage in, Garbage out! Yes it's flawed. The whole idea is flawed. We have had Global Warming, and Global Cooling long before Man ever existed. Why do humans think they have that much power on the universe. Must be a God like complex.

Answer 2

Well first I think you have a very small view, about the "data" that global warming statistics are based on. It's not just thermometers at airports/weather stations.. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

The most credible evidence for global warming comes from ice cores drilled in the arctic. These are nearly 2 miles long and give a history of about 650,000 years of climate temperature and c02 concentration in the atmosphere. The experiments and data analysis, have been replicated by scientists all over the world and the findings are the same accross the board. The most dramatic and sustained rise which continues today corresponds EXACTLY with the industrial revolution. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Up until that point the (excluding ice ages) the temperature and c02 levels were relativley stable with seasonal flucuations. Many will argue that it is part of the earths natural cycle, of periods of ice ages and warming...the truth is, we are not due for a warming period for another 1000 years if that is the case. Something is speeding up the process.

The data that was used in Al Gores argument to the senate back in 1980's, was at that time, simply temperature readings from different weather stations as you said....and yes it was flawed. However, this is 2007 and the data has been collected from other, much more credible sources.... like satelites, ice cores, geologic samples.

The argument that global warming data is flawed, is no longer valid. We have much more precise data today than what the original argument was based on.

Answer 3

Is this question a joke? There's like 5 weather stations listed in your blog there. How the hell do you go from 5 to "most of the 1,221 weather stations"?

Typical global warming skeptic tactic - distort the data.

First off, most of the weather stations are in isolated areas, as they should be.

Secondly, even the ones that are poorly placed have been studied and shown not to significantly affect their results.

Thirdly, even if those few stations were flawed, they would be consistently flawed. In other words, they would always have readings that were too high. They wouldn't have readings that were getting hotter every year.

Fourthly, global warming has been measured by other methods besides weather stations, such as ice cores and by satellites.

So yes, the argument is still valid.

Answer 4

The weather stations cannot even predict the weather tomorrow; yet somehow we are to believe they can predict how global climates will dramatically change in the next dozen years. Lol.

In fact, many scientists today are calling it "climate change" now, dropping the term "global warming"; since last year, various portions of the world experienced their coldest winters in their recorded histories. Since these temperatures do not comport with global averages, obviously something had to give.

Case in point: Philip Klotzbach and the NOAA.

If you want a real laugher, check out the "predictions of tropical activity" table here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Just look at how many times these so-called "scientists" were wrong in their predictions of how many hurricanes we would have in 2006 due to global warming. It is mindstaggering. You would think they would be downright embarrassed each time their predictions were so markedly off.

But no matter what the actual data indicates, these people are just so attached to their theories that they just had to prove there would be more storms in 2006 than in prior years. Unfortunately for them, 2006 was quite regular in terms of storm activity.

I think these scientists owe our nation an apology, for it is people like these who drive the hysteria surrounding global warming. These and the 2500 non-climatologist scientists who signed off that "there is no longer a debate on the issue of global warming."

I'm sorry, when you stop questioning, you've stopped being a scientist.

Answer 5

Global warming data is not perfect, but that is not the same as saying that it is "flawed". The majority of climate scientists agree that we have a problem.

And in case you haven't heard this isn't a political issue. Its a SCIENCE issue. John McCain agrees that global warming is REAL and he is far from being a liberal.

I also just took a look at the graphs on the first link you provide. The trend for ALL the graphs listed is an increase in overall temperature over the years - only a blind or delusional person couldn't see it. And, as previously stated, a blog is not a scientific paper. Provide one of those and you might get a whole lot more respect for your point of view.

Answer 6

I know that what we do on this planet affects everything to do with it. But I also believe that the sensationalists like Gore are only using this as a political platform. They neither subscibe to it or believe it. Another problem half the worlds scientists don't believe it.
But like I said yes there is going to be a time when the planet is going to say enough is enough and that starting now is helpful. But is the world doomed in 50 years, I very seriously doubt that at all.

Answer 7

I think the fact that "global warming" is always a topic of conversation in Politics & Government makes it invalid. If it were not such a political gold mind, then it wouldn't be discussed on this forum - it would be over in science...

Answer 8

LOL, a blog based on the very biased and unresearched "newsbusters" site. Dude, you don't have any evidence there.
Let's do the math here shall we? Billions of tons of carbon and green house gases are billowing out of the U.S alone every month and that adds up every year. And, that amount alone is increasing from America alone. Now lets factor in China, Europe, India, Japan, the Soviet Union, South America etc. And now we have billions more being dumped into the air. Right, there is no global warming just as there are martians on the planet mars. Just like there are tooth fairies and just like there is no such thing as pollution. Wake up for crying out loud. Saying that there is no Global warming is one thing that is pretty ignorant of the facts, but saying that humans are not causing it is just irresponsible and even more ignorant of the scientific facts.

Answer 9

Listen, no one says Global Warming isn't happening. The point is humans are not responsible for it.

Answer 10

Wow. So why are just on YA. Go find a major media forum for dissemination if this is correct and real.