Global warming scams go global

No longer is the manipulation of data to reinforce the preconception of warming a British fetish. Now we learn that our NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York, and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina, are reducing the number of temperature measurement stations by about 75%, and maintaining those at lower altitudes versus higher. You don't need to be a meteoroligist or climatologist to know that this will create higher average temperatures.

In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” .

How can we possibly reorder the world's economy based on information provided by our, formerly, trusted scientific community. Read Delingpole for a more detailed story.

Perhaps we should just confine temperature readings to stations between 23 degrees north and 23 degrees south. Then we could really prove some warming compared to historical global temperature measurements.

Climategate revisited

According to the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis:

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

Again, this is not science. If you only select data that supports your hypothesis you are not testing. This is data that is heavily relied upon by the U.N. IPCC to report the threat of a warming climate. The evidence becomes less and less convincing every day.