re: Over 90% of US climate data is corrupted

quote:

---

It is what the study apparently shows. I'm trying to understand what point you were trying to make if we aren't to believe them.

---

The article says they don’t account for the heat island effect, not that the instruments were faulty. I have no idea if they do or don’t, or have any idea if what’s being measured (localized surface temperature) has any bearing whatsoever in the calculations of climate change data. And I’m going to go out on a limb here but would say neither does anyone else in this thread.

What I do know is the Heartland Institute has a shady past of essentially lying to the public presenting false claims because they were being paid to do so. I get that you desperately want to believe it’s a hoax for some reason and will cling to anything that backs you up, but trusting info coming from a proven paid lying source doesn’t seem like the way to go.

quote:

---

The article says they don’t account for the heat island effect, not that the instruments were faulty.

---

I'm just going to let you keep reading this until it makes sense to you that you just agreed with me.

Then, i'll let you find where I said anything about the instruments being faulty.

quote:

---

I get that you desperately want to believe it’s a hoax for some reason and will cling to anything that backs you up, but trusting info coming from a proven paid lying source doesn’t seem like the way to go.

---

Pretty bold statement for someone making things up.

quote:

---

There is a way to reduce warming cheaply and relatively easily. And it doesn’t involve banning gas stoves, outlawing people’s cars, or decimating the fossil fuel industry. You just need to plant a trillion trees.

---

Easier said, than done. That means planting 125 trees for every person on the planet.

Having said that, it can also be done in the private sector by encouraging people to plant trees. People will do it. We like trees. If they had a big PR plan to plant trees to save the planet, a lot of people in the US would do it. We would plant trees and contribute money to non-profits that plant trees. I don't think we'd hit the 125/person goal, in the private sector, but we would get a lot of trees planted. Then if we took a fraction of the money we spend on green programs, we could get it done.

I don't think it will take a trillion trees, FWIW.

quote:

---

What I do know is the Heartland Institute has a shady past of essentially lying to the public presenting false claims because they were being paid to do so.

---

Hasn’t this also been the case for NOAA?

Most people probably assume exactly accurate and precise temperatures are measured by satellites or lasers or something.

The only data posted for climate change with regards to official weather stations at airports should be the average highs. Highs aren't as affected as overnight lows from the urban heat island effect.

The democrats run on two things that humans have no control over, climate and racism. Its the never ending cycle of power.

Remember back in the 90s when they said all the polar bears would be gone? They have tripled.

quote:

---

What I do know is the Heartland Institute has a shady past of essentially lying to the public presenting false claims because they were being paid to do so. I get that you desperately want to believe it’s a hoax for some reason and will cling to anything that backs you up, but trusting info coming from a proven paid lying source doesn’t seem like the way to go.

---

Please pontificate more.

How about linking some sources to substantiate your blather?

I’m waiting. With baited breath.

quote:

---

A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

---

Al Gore just had a miscarriage somewhere.

quote:

---

But to address your question, I am certain the Heartland Institute understands the climate is considerately warmer than it was 30K-yrs ago. Do you?

---

Is it?

Based on what, data produced from scientist paid to produce a desired result? No offense amigo, but Covid exposed the flaws with modern day $cience.

I mean, they can’t even get correct data sets from the last 50 years.

quote:

---

There is still a discrepancy and disagreement between NOAA’s surface record and all other records of temperature in the last decades of the 20th century. NOAA’s own radiosonde network shows no warming. All other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997. NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.

---

Then there is this…

quote:

---

while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

---