Even if the global temperatures went down by -2C the ’science’ is settled…

We are talking about a new religion now, imagine trying to make all the people agree that there’s no god…

Mike McMillan (10:17:16) : “I can’t fathom why they hate each other.” They compete for the same base.

I don’t disagree that they tend to be Left, but at least in the American sense, Fascism is hardly “Right”. Most on the Right would never tolerate the level of government power in either a Communist or Fascist system.

But don’t confuse Fascism with Nazism (although Nazis were very nature conscious) because it Fascism is not a priori anti-Semitic.

Mussolini Nationalized industries as part of his “Corporatist” economic ideology-Hugo Chavez is general thought to be a Communist, but he to has state run industries. The current government in the US is center left-and they are poised to nationalize the auto industry. Really if anything Fascism is left. It in no way resembles the American Right, which generally prefers as little government control of society as possible.

Maybe the Right in Europe is totally different. If so, I feel sorry for them. A choice between socialists who want to control your lives and fanatical nationalists who want to control your lives…isn’t much of a choice.

Fascist is correct. Communists want to own your stuff. Fascists don’t. They just want to tell you what you can do with it, as though they did own it.

They’re two faces of socialism, and I can’t fathom why they hate each other.

Hear, hear! This is hard to disagree with.

I used to be in SAC when LeMay was Commanding. He once famously said, “I don’t have time to distinguish between the unfortunate and the incompetent.”

Too bad we don’t have someone like General LeMay to run NOAA.

Whose job is it to keep the “metadata” up to “metadate”? Curator? Coop manager? Can we “get on their case” – maybe even help them? This might be something we *can* do something about. (before everybody forgets what happened)

Best,
Frank

there are too many j. hasen fans and “world rescuer” all around.

they may go out with their hair dryer…to “help the dramatic warming”…

Ed Fix (17:16:03) :

Many of these people volunteer their own time and their own property to do this reporting (it can’t be easy mowing around this thing without disturbing it). They deserve our thanks, and they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt when things aren’t perfect.

I am having the impression that these people don’t get paid to do their job, correct me if I am wrong. I would spend less money in useless computer models and allocate some money to give them some cash for their trouble.
Do they, at least, recieve some kind of gratification, like a GISS barbecue or something? Honest question.

What about the stations located at airports? I guess the person in charge gets paid by the airport authorities. Can that pose some sort of bias?

J.Hansford (01:36:54) :

So as an ex fisherman, it comes as no surprise to see the Eco Fascists engaging the same sort of tactics in the gathering of data for climate “studies” (Propaganda)

I don’t think ‘eco fascists’ is a right term. From what I know, these people come from a left background. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left drifted to more ‘ecological’ positions. I would call them ‘eco communists’ As in ‘we have to do what I demand to save the Earth’, cap and trade included.

I think, they do not like reality:

why are “bubkes” so funny?

what do you “experts” say to the lower atmosphäre t trend:
1978/2004:

RATPAC (radiosonde) 0.02±0.07ºC per decade
HadAT2 (radiosonde) 0.03±0.08ºC per decade
UAH (satellite) 0.04±0.08ºC per decade
RSS (satellite) 0.13±0.08ºC per decade
UMd (satellite) 0.20±0.07ºC per decade
NCEP50 (reanalysis) -0.04±0.10ºC per decade
ERA40 (reanalysis) 0.07±0.10ºC per decade.

yea, realy bubkes, but real data for people who likes messuring urban heat islands.

what has realclimate.org to do with REAL CLIMATE if you permanant ignore or delete this “bubkes”???

“just finished an Iowa site, and the curator couldn’t have been nicer. ”

Which just goes to illustrate what I’ve always known–that rural Iowans are the nicest people on earth (this from a former Iowa farm boy).

L (01:40:03) :

“…couldn’t these things be excluded from urban and suburban neighborhoods and located in places where human activity doesn’t change the parameters…”

As far as “urban” settings, this one is about as good as it gets. It’s at the far south end of a small (pop ~6500) town, well away from the heat from the business district.

I was once at a conference where, after a researcher presented his work, an audience member made a rather thoughtless off-the-cuff comment about the quality of the underlying data.

The researcher’s answer was priceless, “Yes, it would be nice to have an infinite amount of noiseless data. The real world is seldom so accomodating.”

The Coop manager does know what kind of data he needs, but in the end, you always have to work with what you can get, not with what you wish you had. And he’s monitoring weather, not climate.

As I understand it, the deck where the sensor was mounted was deteriorating and had to be removed for safety. I’m sure the Coop manager didn’t have a hole built into his schedule just in case a station had to be moved that week. They also have a big job, involving more than just monitoring these volunteers.

I just hope the owner of the house doesn’t see this post, because if she does, I’ll never be able to get a re-survey when the monitor is operational again.

Like Edyfix, I appreciate the efforts of the citizens who monitor these things, but think that the subject is a little more important than to be left to folks who have day jobs, take vacations, and so on. Can we re-analyze the data set from only the stations that are not compromised by the (very) local environment? For example, living on an acre+, more than half of the property is home only to the wild things still living in the Sonoran Desert. Put one of those thingys by my back fence and it won’t know anything other than what the temperature is doing, ’cause no human being other than the monitor will ever see it.

Can Anthony’s survey identify “pristine sites” and reduce the data set to only those sites which are not cmpromised by local development(s)? New sites dedicated to The Question” would probably be a good idea, but at the expense of starting from scratch. With all the compu-power out there, is there not a way to separate wheat from chaff without reinventing grain?

So as an ex fisherman, it comes as no surprise to see the Eco Fascists engaging the same sort of tactics in the gathering of data for climate “studies” (Propaganda)

It’s been a highly successful tactic for them for a long time, making up science out of Bureaucratic record keeping.

Afraid I have to agree with “unfair”. Poor siting indeed does not fall on the curators, but a measure of ridicule/censure does when they see their site picked for the “How not to measure temperature” series after years of faithful tedium recording and submitting data.

I just finished an Iowa site, and the curator couldn’t have been nicer. He took over the station from his son. The present location isn’t ideal, being near the house with a stand of trees surrounding three sides. The house sits atop a hill, however, and the trees are an essential windbreak. Farther away from the house would be fatal to the sensor, for the hill is a lightning magnet and the house has a full complement of lightning rods. Trees beyond the sensor show lightning scars, and a strike destroyed the inside readout once.

The site moved around in town several times, and finally out to the farm where it is now. Had he not taken it, we might have lost a long (1890’s) record to Filnet.

If we’re going to continue the “How not to” thread, perhaps we might leave out the station identification in the story. Anyone wanting to know could easily find out (the photo link title), but we might otherwise spare some curators some undeserved hard feelings.

You made a good call. I do not think that the people who collect the data are being ridiculed. The places many of these stations are sited certainly is and the siting of the one you photographed must also be called into question. Hilarity aside (which is also not aimed at the people collecting the data but at the current state of the equipment) a number of the comments are aimed at how the non-existent data will be entered into the record. They are aimed at the ones who manipulate questionable siting figures to help produce “proof” of AGW. You know, the ones who march to the beat of the Al-Gore-Rhythmistas. :D