Submission + - AGW 'skeptic' produces hard data; nobody notices
MyFirstNameIsPaul writes: "Anthony Watts, a meteorologist from Chico, California founded a volunteer project, surfacestations.org, in 2007 with the goal of surveying all of the 1221 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations to see how well they meet the National Weather Service's (NWS) own siting requirements. These are the stations that report the official record of temperatures here in the U.S. The project uses a network of volunteers armed with basic tools such as cameras, tape measures, GPS units, and a printout of the project's instructions to report the results of the surveys to the project.
In May, the project completed its first report with 70% of the USHCN stations having been surveyed. This report found, among other things, that 89% of the stations fail to meet the NWS requirements. Of note is that they failed in such a way that the stations would likely indicate higher temperatures. The report also discusses the poor recording processes of many stations and how the data is 'adjusted' by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA.
But most disappointing is the complete lack of coverage by virtually all media. This simple and provocative investigation into the data which is at the very heart of the entire AGW theory doesn't seem to register anywhere when, at the very least, it should warrant a demand for a solid rebuttal from the theory's proponents by the media. There are some out there who are warning of the new 'Climate-Industrial Complex', of which perhaps the media is a beneficiary."
In May, the project completed its first report with 70% of the USHCN stations having been surveyed. This report found, among other things, that 89% of the stations fail to meet the NWS requirements. Of note is that they failed in such a way that the stations would likely indicate higher temperatures. The report also discusses the poor recording processes of many stations and how the data is 'adjusted' by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA.
But most disappointing is the complete lack of coverage by virtually all media. This simple and provocative investigation into the data which is at the very heart of the entire AGW theory doesn't seem to register anywhere when, at the very least, it should warrant a demand for a solid rebuttal from the theory's proponents by the media. There are some out there who are warning of the new 'Climate-Industrial Complex', of which perhaps the media is a beneficiary."
