Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Global warming scam caught red handed again.

Here's ANOTHER official thermometer sited to increase temperature. This one is in Australia.

Count the ways this site breaches the Bureau of Meteorology own rules:

Ken Stewart finds the relevant BoM guidelines. Clearly this site is on a slope, too close to buildings, too close to tall foliage, too close to heat sinks, it should not be artificially watered, or near asphalt. It should have a 30 meter buffer zone, and not be shielded from the sun, rain or wind. BillinOz points out that it is totally screened from the southerly cold winds, and the cold air will be drained from the spot down the slope.
How much do the Bureau of Meteorology care about climate change? — About 1m out of 30m or 3% of their advertised "care" factor.  That's a a 97% Junk-Science rate. The future of life on Earth is supposedly at stake and the "experts" can't even be bothered accurately measuring the climate change they tell us we need to pay billions of dollars to solve.
Obviously every record claimed at this site is scientifically meaningless. This sort of error can't be homogenized or adjusted away, but taxpaying Australians might think that installing a proper site would be possible when we pay them over a million dollars a day.
Mt Barker's temperatures are published at their Latest Weather Observations page. As Stewart points out this flawed site is used to adjust temperatures at official superstar ACORN-SAT sites at Adelaide, Cape Borda, Nuriootpa, Robe, and Snowtown. And thus does bad data pollute Australia's temperature records and the press releases that are used to scare the public into paying more money to fix a climate problem no one can be bothered to even measure properly.
The bottom line? Ask our M.P.'s to audit the Bureau of Met. If the environment matters, there must be an independent audit. Skeptics have asked, and the Bureau threw out the whole dataset to avoid the audit. They admit they won't describe their methods. If the Greens or Australian Conservation Foundation cared about the environment, they would demand an audit like we do.
In 2015 this site was on the other side of the block next to the driveway and car. "Lucky" the BoM realized, and … moved it to another inadequate spot.

This is a common theme in official weather stations. One or two that were put up by idiots is noise. But as we've seen, hundreds of stations are like this one. Next to a house, on a hill, air conditioner peeking around the corner, next to a driveway... it goes on and on.

One or two is noise. Hundreds is a policy.

Next question, if the weather officials in Western nations have a policy of constructing lying ground stations, what else are they lying about? You'd have to assume they're lying about everything.

The Phantom

Update: Lest anyone think for a moment that the above is a mistake or an oversight... this is another one, and they included the official plan in the blog post.


Jay Harper said...

The station in Rome is at the airport, where it is washed by jet exhaust every few minutes.

The Phantom said...

Kate has dozens from Canada on her blog Small Dead Animals. They're everywhere. The challenge is to find one on a proper site.

The Overgrown Hobbit said...

It's even possible that Climate Change, as opposed to anthropogenic climate change, is actually happening, and the earth is getting colder.

I keep reading about the solar minimum and what it's affects would be if Earth were going through one of the big ones.

I found a summary of my half-informed position here: https://abruptearthchanges.com/2018/01/14/climate-change-grand-solar-minimum-and-cosmic-rays/

TL'DR: We could be getting colder. And if we start massive gummint projects to make the planet "cooler" (because global warming) we're not only going to waste money, we're going to kill a lot of people.

Jay Harper said...

I remember back in the 70's all the science magazines were full of stories of the coming Ice Age, which was supposed to hit us no later that the magical year 2000. Isaac Asimov wrote an excellent article for Science Digest Magazine (in its small, Analog size) in about 1975. He wrote that we didn't live in the best of all possible worlds. An Ice Age would free up large areas of Continental shelf for a large net gain in farming and living space. A warming period would remove the permafrost from the North, resulting in a large net gain in farm lands and living space. Neither Scenario has happened yet and won't, except in geological time frames. I lost all these magazines, sadly, during a move 15 years ago.