Two American scientists have found evidence of the selective removal of weather stations in areas with cold temperatures from the global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Read the rest: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skepti cs/2468634/story.html

Two American scientists have found evidence of the selective removal of weather stations in areas with cold temperatures from the global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Read the rest: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skepti cs/2468634/story.html

The IEA paper has more substance than this.

The big picture is that the last decade was the warmest in recorded history (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-warming-spotted-by-nasa.html) according to NASA.

The big picture is that the last decade was the warmest in recorded history according to NASA.

Well, ahhh, yeah, but ....with all the latest incidents about manipulated data, can you trust that nice looking chart? If all the numbers are wrong or not accurate, how can the "big picture" be considered accurate?

Baron Max

More innuendo via fake "questions" designed to avoid presenting actual argument from evidence, as would be necessary in an honest assertion?

Yep.

More innuendo via fake "questions" designed to avoid presenting actual argument from evidence, as would be necessary in an honest assertion?

So what are you saying? That all the data on climate is accurate and can be trusted to base entire theories on without worry or concern?

Answer this question: Is all of the data on climate change accurate? Yes or no?

Baron Max

So what are you saying? That all the data on climate is accurate and can be trusted to base entire theories on without worry or concern?

Answer this question: Is all of the data on climate change accurate? Yes or no?

Baron Max

You've got the cart before the horse here, as I have endeavoured to explain to you previously.

The theory that anthropogenic global warming can occur preceeds any allegaions that it is occuring by something like 100 years.

So? What makes you think there can't be sound scientific reasons for the exclusions?

Well, ahhh, yeah, but ....with all the latest incidents about manipulated data, can you trust that nice looking chart? If all the numbers are wrong or not accurate, how can the "big picture" be considered accurate?

Baron Max

it said that they ignored scientific findings by colder altitudes, not colder climates.

And when you think about it, it makes sense, the higher the altitude the colder it stays year round.

The fact is you wouldnt see them change as much as other parts of the world because of their altitude.

Besides the fact that we want to know how global warming will affect populated areas, not high altitude cold areas because a much smaller percentage of the population lives there.

It's not fraud at all, they didn't attempt to cover it up, they just chose to ignore it because it was inconsequential. and it was.

I'm absolutely sure D'Aleo and Smith have the wrong assertions in mind.

The number of sites were narrowed down for reasons that are scientific in nature, not because of political agenda or bias. That I am sure of.

Many maps for this winter from NASA / NOAA show cooling for the interior parts of Canada and Siberia, represented by blue dots.

But, as the Weather Channel guy said, the blue dots are "lost in a sea of reds."