NASA Climate Scientists Are Blindo Morons – And So Are You If You Think Their Data Shows Global Warming

So, believers in global warming… Do you know where your scientific data that shows steadily rising global temperatures really comes from?

NASA researchers responsible for collecting temperature records get their measurements from stations like these below. The temperature sensor is the little white cylinder-box.

Coyote Blog also has the accompanying temperature measurement graph:

The air conditioning vents were installed in – surprise! – 2000. Just when the temperature graph shows a large, sudden surge upwards. Wow, how coincidental??!!

Any moron would know that the temperature sensor record was affected by the hot air being spewed out by the vents, but not climate scientists – their understanding of reality is so superior that they can wish away all the discrepancies in writing their report.

And here’s another example of manmade global warming:

Yup, manmade as in made up by lying men trying to hold on to their fat research grants.

And again, Coyote Blog has the temperature data from NASA to compare:

Coyote puts it bluntly this way:

Do you read the warming since 2000 as man-made global warming due to CO2, or do you read it as a move of the temperature instrument to a totally inappropriate urban site in 2000, contaminated with hot asphalt, car radiators, nearby buildings, air conditioning exhaust, etc?

You should know that NASA’s GISS reads this as man-made global warming, and reports it as such. Further, NASA actually takes the raw data above and in their computer model lowers temperatures in 1900 and 1920, actually increasing the apparent warming trend. For the record, the GISS opposes this kind of photo survey as worthless and argues that their computer algorithms, which correct for urban warming at this site in 1900 but not in 2007, work just fine with no knowledge of the specific site location.

As Coyote says about the above, even kids can realize the sheer stupidity of the experiment parameters which supposedly educated, unbiased and professional NASA global warmist researchers try to cover up:

Out-of-the-mouth-of-babes moment: My son says, “gee, dad, doesn’t that metal building reflect a lot of heat on the thermometer-thing.” You can bet it does. This is so obvious even a 14-year-old can see it, but don’t tell the RealClimate folks who continue to argue that they can adjust the data for station quality without ever seeing the station.

And with a miniscule budget and minimal ground-work effort, the 14-year old and his dad instantly disprove the IPCC by showing that temperature gets cooler linearly by about 0.2-0.3 degrees F per mile from urban centres.

What was that about the urban heat island effect being a totally negligible factor again? IPCC MORONS. 

The Coyote Sr. and Jr. little experiment is more unbiased and scientific method adhering than all the IPCC’s cherry picking data and selectively choosing studies.

More examples of global warming brainwashed idiocy can be seen at Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming, such as the below:

Yes, that is a barbeque pit (which involves fire, which is hot, duh) that is used three times a week. Nope, no skewed datan here, so it must be GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Also at here.

This is why I don’t believe the so-called ‘neutral and objective’ climate scientists at NASA and the IPCC. They’re blatantly dishonest, stupid, arrogant, lazy, or a combination of all those.

Do you still wonder why global warming skeptics are outraged that this sort of shoddy research is passed off as ‘scientific consensus about global warming’?

See also NASA rocked by global warming rebellion – Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery.

Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming

This post is featured as part of Global Warming is Unfactual

These pics from surfacestations.org really struck me with the absurd selective blindness of global warming researchers. It shows the location of ground-based temperature sensors whose recordings are currently used as ‘proof’ that global temperatures have been rising.

The urban heat island effect is often cited as one reason ground-based temperature readings are higher than atmospheric readings taken by sattelites (see point 4 of my post on that).

Basically, the heat generated by cities full of vehicles, people, steel, glass and concrete cause cities to be much warmer than other areas.

Global warming skeptics contend that most of the ‘global warming’ detected by ground-based temperature recording stations are located very near (or inside!) cities, thus skewing the data.

Global warming supporters say that the urban heat island effect has been accounted for in the interpreted data. The skeptics counter that the effect has not been adequately accounted for.

The gist of it: Skeptics feel that global temperatures have NOT been rising nearly as much as the alarmists claim. The perceived and much-touted data showing tempeature increase is mostly due to inaccurate data from badly-placed recording stations.

Take a look for yourself at a small selection of sensor locations from the surfacestations.org page and tell me if the stations are badly placed in utterly idiotic (or intentionally biased to get high temperature readings) areas.

Explanation follow pix:

———–

GOOD PLACES TO GET CORRUPTED TEMPERATURE DATA FROM:

Apparently the firefighters use that BBQ can 3 times a week. Wonder if that (or the concrete or steel tower or air-con vents) has ANY effect on the temperature readings?

Close to an air-con vent and VERY close to a steel chain-link fence. Quiz for you: What happens to the temperature sensor when it’s a hot day and the house owner switches the air-con on while the fence absorbs and radiates heat from the sunlight?

Out in the middle of bare ground, a few feet away air-conditioning vents, where planes land after running their engiens for hours. Does this location skew the temperature readings AT ALL?

No? Then how about close-up of the same box, showing a non-fluorescent light bulb located inside the temperature reading station shelter itself? After all, everyone knows that light bulbs switched on for hours do NOT get hot enough to burn your hand.

Coyote Blog’s post also has the accompanying temperature measurement graph…

Which shows a sudden, inexplicable spike. Just around the time the air-con unit was installed! MUST be coincidence, because global warming is DEFINATELEY PROVARN AND REEL, right?

Just like in this case where:

Temperature graph shows a sudden spike in 2000…

Which just happens to be, pure coincidence, cannot possibly affect the data, the time when the temperature sensor was shifted to a totally inappropriate urban site contaminated with hot asphalt, car radiators, nearby buildings, air conditioning exhaust, etc.

ADOI… Sitting right next to a barrel used to burn trash. Burn = fire = heat = higher temperature recordings, yes no?

Oh look… I don’t suppose that being surrounded by hot aphsalt and brick walls – that reflect sunlight and heat at the sensor – would in any way affect the temperature data? But wait! Look what’s on the other side…

Why, it’s the good old, heat spewing, data distorting air-conditioner exhaust vents. Huge ones at that! If you doubt that these vents can really affect the temperature recordings, just stand in front of one for five minutes and tell me if you change your mind.

Heck, why don’t they just set up stations next to active volcanoes or the open wood fires at Kenny Rogers restaurants? Heck, why not set up stations in Heck? That should gatehr some really convincing alarmist data to jolt the masses into acknowledging global warming!

———–

Seriously folks, even I in my thesis – with my lazy disposition, lack of interest and disregard for the proper procedure of sitting on my butt looking at bugs every day – never ran an experiment as uncaringly or ineptly as the researchers monitoring those temperature sensors.

Just listen to what the IPCC says: Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.

So concrete hot enough to fry eggs on, raw steel, hot-air spweing air conditioners and point-blank filament bulbs have a negligible influence on temperature reading values, eh?

If you still aren’t convinced that the surroundings affect the data, then take a look at this posting that compares two sites – one pictured above that has rising temperature records, and another one which has FALLING temperature records.

Does any ‘scientific’ body give a care about the falling temperature graph? About any of this invalidated data? Not the IPCC, that’s for sure! Why include information that runs contrary to your pre-formed conclusions? All that will do is foster rational debate, and the IPCC don’t want none of that shikes. It might lessen their funding and paycheques! Horrors!

Temperature recording stations – as ineptly planned, shoddily executed and downright falsified as most of the rest of global warming pseudo-science.

See also this post for more ranting against the moron machine.

See also NASA rocked by global warming rebellion – Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery.