Dishonesty Regarding the Associated Press' Seth Borenstein's Global Warming Headline
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
Author:
Harrison
Tags:
baghdad bob deception global warming Liberals lies Seth Borenstein“Global Warmers” must be alarmed that public support is dropping for the theory that climate change is caused by man, hence this new study commissioned by the Associate Press with the headline: “Statisticians Reject Global Cooling.” The recent study, according to AP, says that:
Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
The “author” of this story is Seth Borenstein who, according to News Busters, is the Baghdad Bob of Global Warming. If you want to read up on Seth you may click here. How can one study whether it is warmer or cooler now than it has been in the past? Obviously one must rely on temperature readings from the past and compare those to the records of today. The assumption which underlies this entire study is that the temperature readings are accurate. What happens if those temperature readings are not accurate? Obviously, the entire case for “global warming” falls apart.
Temperatures are recorded throughout the U.S. at temperature stations. These “stations” are located in various parts of the United States. All of us know, from having been outside on a warm day that it is much hotter when you stand in the middle of a parking lot than it is when you stand in a grassy field. We also know if it much hotter when you stand in front of the back-end of an air conditioning compressor that is blowing hot exhaust air onto you than when you stand in a forest. We also know that while the location of the temperature stations may not have changed the area around it may have (after all suburbs did not exist 75 years ago did they?). You’d think these temperature stations wouldn’t be in front of artificial sources of heat but you’d be wrong if you assumed that!
Temperature station next to A/C exhaust.
Temperature station next to barrel used to burn trash.
Pretty interesting, eh? These are but two examples. There are about 1,200 of these temperature stations in the U.S. scattered around the entire country. In urban areas with lots of buldings and roads and cars you get what are called “heat island” effects which means the air temperature is artificially higher there because the sun is getting reflected off of things and you have exhaust raising the temperatures higher than they really are.
Here are two examples as to how what surrounds these temperature stations can do to the readings:
Surrounded by nothing and...
...surrounded by lots of heat-producing stuff!
Notice the two huge differences in the recorded temperatures over time? Gee… wonder why? Obviously that MMTS Shelter that is surrounded by all kinds of artificial heat sources is not recording the true temperature!
Remember… these temperature station readings are what is used to calculate those “statistics” that Seth from the AP says are contributing towards global warming!
Now obviously 50 or 100 years ago we did not even have temperature stations, we had people who would get up in the morning and stroll over to their glass thermometers and write down what it said. You can imagine that sometimes these people would go out at 9am, other times maybe at 2pm or sometimes at 9pm. Maybe they were gone for a few days so they just “made up” what they thought the temperatures were in their abscence? And since they didn’t have digital thermometers how would they know the difference between 80 degrees and 80.4 degrees? Exactly they didn’t so they guessed!
This is the historical record that is being used! And out of all the places in the entire world where temperatures are being recorded to you think the readings from the U.S. are more accurate or less accurate than those from, say, Algeria or Caracas or maybe Liverpool? The U.S. readings are probably the most accurate but as we’ve seen even they aren’t necessarily right!
So if we have temperature readings from today that aren’t correct and if the ones from the past aren’t correct how can the Associated Press do a story saying that “Statisticians Reject Global Cooling”?
Well the answer is obvious! They just don’t reveal that while the statisticians are right in their conclusions the data they are using is wrong so therefore their conclusion can’t be right!
For further reading on this subject you may visit these sites:
SurfaceStations.org
Buuuuurrrrning Hot
Coyote Blog
Once again… “global warmers” need to use dishonesty to scare people into going along with their story. The information in this article was all gathered by using Google… that’s how shallow their decpetions are.
I wonder, since the Left called Bush evil for doing the same thing about terrorism after 9-11 will they apply the same standard to these people?
I’ll leave you to figure that one out for yourself.
Remember… these temperature station readings are what is used to calculate those “statistics” that Seth from the AP says are contributing towards global warming!
Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email
Related posts:
14:08
I found out about these from the blog Watts Up With That a while back. My friend says this isn’t a big problem because you can just use a regressive model to fix the problem. So we fix what is a guess with some more guessing. Sounds like a great way to discover scientific truth.
burro´s last blog ..100 Newspapers
14:20
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain
10:43
I suppose it you look hard enough you will find maybe a few more improperly placed “weather stations”. At the same time, the great majority of them are probably located properly and are providing accurate data.
You seem to be ignoring the global warming information coming out of both of our polar regions, where the ice is melting big time. How about the disappearing glaciers? Are they located near A/C exhausts?
Politicus´s last blog ..Some Thoughts About Social Media
10:49
You miss or ignore the main point that the data which is used it wrong. Wrong data = wrong conclusion = wrong actions.
You are right… the glaciers are melting! They are melting very fast around the edges however you fail to point out that the ice is getting much thicker in the center so no net negative change (in fact it’s probably the opposite).
11:05
I have seen some glaciers, which have practically disappeared all together, so there is no “thicker part in the center”.
Where do you get your information, I wonder…Some denier newsletter? There must be something like that around, although I don’t intend to look for it…
Politicus´s last blog ..Some Thoughts About Social Media
11:27
I am speaking of the North and South Pole where the vast majority of the ice is.
As to the glaciers… I wonder if SUVs caused them to melt after the last ice age?
20:38
Nope, Harrison. EVERYTHING is melting, except the ice cubes in your freezer.
Politicus´s last blog ..Some Thoughts About Social Media
21:12
Sorry you’re wrong:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/wuwt-ice-survey-shows-thickening-arctic-ice/
08:29
Even if that data was actually correct, the fact remains that it is probably just and adjustment of a huge, cold mass of ice. Overall, the temperatures are going up and the ice is melting and that of course includes the glaciers at lower latitudes.
Politicus´s last blog ..Some Thoughts About Social Media
08:35
The data appears to be correct. If you lose ice at the edges but gain it at the center there’s not net loss. In fact, the data suggests there’s a net gain involved. And if the temperatures were really going up how would you gain ice? Again, garbage in, garbage out.
There are plenty of other studies that show the same thing.
14:37
Ice can accumulate in the thick, dense centers of any mass, because that mass is cold in its own right and despite outside influences is in fact still cold enough to maintain itself and even grow. That’s the simplest of physics.
The loss at the edges is the one to be concerned about, as this is the part that is being influenced by the general warming.
As far as glaciers in the lower latitudes, they are not thick, or dense enough, like the humongous mass of ice in Antarctica to maintain themselves against the outside influences. Also take a look at data from the northern polar regions, including Greenland and the Arctic Ocean – meltdown in a big way.
Politicus´s last blog ..Some Thoughts About Social Media
15:12
This is interesting:
Well it is that time of year again, the Arctic ice begins to melt, as it does every year, and all sorts of crazy talk starts coming out. This time from Greenpeace. I am encouraged though, as they have come around to the idea that maybe they are doing more harm than good by overselling the alarmism.
NSIDC also has taken a more moderate tone, announcing that there will “likely be no record low ice extent in 2009“. This is a sharp contrast to last year’s ridiculous press statement from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze about an “ice free north pole”. Now that Greenpeace has come clean on their statement, maybe Dr. Serreze will finally admit his statement was “a mistake”. – Anthony
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
11:16
You have to admit though. All the hue and cry about manmade global warming has turned out to be correct.
It’s just all made up in their heads…
HeckSpawn´s last blog ..Supreme Court schedules Chicago gun rights case
09:24
I was going to comment on Mr.Borenstein’s artical (analysis) today on global warming,but it look’s like Harrison has it pretty well covered.He has my vote. Dr.Who-2
20:19
You miss one elemental point.
the issue is not what the absolute temperatures are, but what the trends are. most of these places are fairly stable for decades, and significant trends have been observed over this time period.
the real question is why some want to fight against — in what is seemingly a partisan way — what is really a non partisan, non political, and wholly scientific issue.
is it because of fear or regulation and cost? then work toward sensible policies that inspire the market instead. as for cost, how do you know that using fuels, for example, that are terribly polluting and that increase atmospheric heat trapping gas concentration, isn’t terrible inefficient? how do you know that growing and developing smarter, leaner, cleaner fuels, and rewarding market behavior tha moves us in the direction, won’t help spur growth and create jobs. why do you assume that jobs and growth must be based upon the way we have always done it, even when we discover that a few of the ways are becoming increasingly counterproductive?
just some food for thought. Here’s an article, although a bit conceptual, that explores this further
ELA´s last blog ..The Other Part of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Equation – Science, and the Illusion of Cost
20:24
Your mistake is in assuming that many of the scientists who say man is causing the planet to warm are not being partisan. Were it truly a non-partisan, purely logical analysis of the facts the conclusion would be: We don’t know. The next conclusion would be should we try and re-order the entire nature of human life on the planet and spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on a hunch? The logical conclusion is “no.”
Did you know that man is responsible for less than 0.117% of all CO2 produced on Earth? Did you know that water vapor is responsible for over 95% of heat-trapping gases?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html