Calling It “The Cruelest Link”

AND ENGAGING IN A BIT of schadenfreude, Doc Mercury points to this story at Fox News. And leaves the rest as an exercise for the student. Of course, BTB regulars are already aware, this is one of the myriad paths from whence cometh the debunking of the whole CAGW/Climate Change hoax.

Our readers are aware of (and, I hope, have studied) Anthony Watts’s Surface Stations initiative, wherein a volunteer network of observers gathered metadata on U.S.-based observation stations which are a part of the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN), on whose data the Global Warming wheeze is purportedly based.

Please take note of this next bit…

The team was able to find and locate the original log book in which the temperature was recorded. From it and other sources they were able to identify five major problems with the record temperature: it was made a new and untrained observer; it was measured with an instrument that was antiquated even at that time; the observation site wasn’t representative of its surroundings; it didn’t match other temperatures measured in the area; and it didn’t match later temperatures taken at the site.

“We found systematic errors in the 1922 reading,” said Cerveny, who also is the Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for the WMO, the person responsible for keeping worldwide weather records.

Essentially, the case likely boiled down to someone inexperienced incorrectly reading a thermometer that could easily be misread, the team concluded. The resulting reading was too high by 12.6 F (7 C), they found.

(Emphasis mine.)

Which is, as you should know by now, if you were paying attention, the point made by the Surface Stations project. The siting of the overwhelming majority of the stations in the network biased the temperature record by at least 2 and more often as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Always in the direction of warming.

So, when they make fun of you for not accepting that the existence of warming has been proven, laugh in their faces. They obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *