I would dearly love to identify a conspiracy here, but I have already poked around meteorology science on the ground in Australia and my conclusion has been that politicians underfund; bureaucrats have departmental and not science priorities; and most scientists are thick as bricks.

An example of the latter… In virtually every damaging cyclone that hits Australia, the wind speed (WS) equipment is destroyed by flying debris. I publicly challenged meteorologists to move their equipment to immediate beach high points, to avoid damage and they simply defended current locations. The result is, official WS measurements are whatever was recorded at the point of destruction. Go figure.

I argued that photographic evidence showed that Cyclone Tracey of Darwin, 1974, showed every leaf, twig and branch stripped off what trees remained standing, and that exposed cars were sandblasted to clean steel, indicating at least 300 KPH wind speed (as every sandblaster is aware). Yet, this irrefutable comparative evidence of wind impact was not evident in other cyclones that scientists claimed had higher wind speeds.

This has horrific implications for public safety, architecture, storm surge and insurance; yet scientists refuse to confront the evidence that commonsense renders apparent.

In terms of anthropogenic global warming I suspect that, likewise, refusal to acknowledge the impact of urbanisation of formerly rural weather stations has distorted measurements, and that banker/corporate conglomerates are exploiting the situation to garner the $3 trillion per year ‘carbon tax’ and further impoverish we mugs.

‘How not to measure’ frontiersmen and women are incisively penetrating the fraud and I believe deserve a vote of thanks from all of us.

REPLY: for the period that the station existed at this location, most likely yes.

I think your mother would be proud.

I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Kaufman’s essay that you linked to. Thanks.

Since this seems to be a bellwether post on the SurfaceStation project could you be induced to begin planning another–to examine CDIAC and their seeming monopoly on CO2 measurement? Beginning with their Siemen’s black box and monitoring station placements they appear to have issues as well.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

REPLY: I’m one man doing this part time with volunteers, while I have a this blog, business to run, a daily radio forecast, a wife and two young children that need my attention. I appreciate the faith in my ability, but I’m not a superhero.

Thanks for being a good sport. There are all sorts of quirky issues between
GHCN, USHCN, and GISS. So have some fun comparing the data. I thought it would be a fun test of sorts. Let the chips fall where they may.

Other thing I wanted to ask was whether you used USHCNv2 or v1?

Also, note that since Anthony Posts his data in an open forum people can check it and find mistakes.

I also posted on post on Lucia ( google “lucia rank exploits)

Watch her tear the fur off the bunnyman eli rabbet.

Here is a challenge for atmoz or others. see if Eli will allow a
link to lucia schooling him in physics.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbett-vs-dr-pielke-sr/

She has an interesting piece ATMOZ . She’s wicked smart so you might enjoy the conversation, Eli will not.

anthony, have you thought of putting Lucia blog roll.

Sorry your post got lost in the moderation queue. It’s visible now. Thanks for the comment, and I’ll be doing a post later today as you suggest.