What the Climategate scandal is uncovering is a growing litany of evidence to prove cynical cherry picking of the climate data by certain biased key climatologists to artificially make the planet appear warmer than it is. As that fine writer of the ‘Daily Telegraph’, James Delingpole so eloquently puts it, “To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)–the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations.
“Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented” and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia.”
I have done my own investigations for readers at Climategate.com and wish to report very disturbing little-known facts from that other fine source, Chiefio, who has conducted admirable analysis on this.
Chiefio reports that 806 weather stations were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide temperature stations in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) data. GHCN is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Absent any public statement from climatolgists for such a strange act, I can only speculate that this a deliberate attempt to cause an artificial warming of the data set. I can think of no other valid scientific reason.
Would someone please ask GCHN to make a public statement as to why they tried to secretly “lose” weather stations when surely more data is better than less? I’ve listed the stations that have been dropped, on page two of this article. It’s quote long, if you’d like to see it click here.
Possibly related posts:
- Are islands really getting that sinking feeling?
- Long live the Urban Heat Island Effect
- Met Office uses backyard homemade weather station
- Monster Washington snowstorm screws up new NOAA Climate Change office announcement, but website ready to go with its propaganda
- Czechgate: Part Two – The GISS rape of Prague