With apologies to David Letterman’s “Stupid Human Tricks”…it’s like a manifest of David Parkers “cool parks” reverse UHI urban myth. Maybe it had something to do with this ongoing threat from the European Union:
By Chris Horner at The American Spectator
This gem from Spain — Madrid’s mayor proclaimed massive air pollution reductions except, ah,
“The state prosecutor’s office found that in 2009 the Madrid municipality had quietly moved nearly half its pollution sensors from traffic-clogged streets in the city centre to parks and gardens”
— reminds us of the cheapest way to cool the planet:
Reopen the Canadian and Siberian temperature stations closed ca. 1990, prompting ‘the hottest decade on record’.
Much cheaper than energy rationing. And more effectively addresses the matter, as well.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are released by industry, traffic and ……..
…………………….home heating systems.
============================================
LOL, and exactly how are they supposed to fix that?
Heh. Leave out all the bad (good) news, and you’ll have nothing but good (bad) news. Kind of like when the government bean-counters exclude food and energy from their core inflation calculations. ;->
It must always be remembered that the EU is operating more and more like the old Soviet Union: thus to meet centralised ‘quotas’ of whatever kind local commissars (in this case mayors) merely cook the books.
With alternative news blogs, people get more suspicious and start rejecting gubment propoganda.
It is hurting trust of the government.
If we face a real crisis, no one will react.
Whilst I consider that station drop out is likely to be one factor in the recent observed warming, has anyone compiled the data from the stations that have dropped out and demonstrated what these say and how they compare to the post 1990 trend?
No doubt it would be a big task, but surely it would be very relevant and would demonstrate the extent to which station drop out is a real (as opposed to perceived) factor.
If CO2 is ‘well mixed’ then the difusion rate must be really fast over short distances …. so the Mayor’s actions should have had no effect.
But because of this controlled experiment, the data should allow climatologists how fast the mixing process actually takes.
And now Spain can produce Solar Energy at night … I do love it when a plan comes together!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/spain-produces-solar-energy-at-night.html
Anthony the link at the top
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/more-stupid-environmentalist-tricks/teaudit.org/2007/06/14/parker-2006-an-urban-myth/
comes up with a sorry that the link cannot be found message
needs repairing.
I wonder how much the mayor of Madrid had to pay Gavin, Reto, and Jimmy for consulting on how to manipulate data, pervert science, and maintain a government check while being a full time left wing activist?
Probably plenty, infantile, emoting, urban lefties are easy, but not cheap.
As to the first graph even Ross McKitrick, the person who created it, admits “The temperature average in the above graph is unprocessed. Graphs of the ‘Global Temperature’ from places like GISS and CRU reflect attempts to correct for, among other things, the loss of stations within grid cells, so they don’t show the same jump at 1990. ”
There in no source for the global temp’s map, so people have no way of knowing how it was created.
You mean you can alter the result by moving sensors!
I thought if you wanted to do that you could just use “unique” statistical methods.
@Henry chance:
Poor baby. If the leftists want us to believe them when they cry “crisis”, then let them stop constantly crying wolf, which they’ve been doing for 60+ years. The whole history of the environmental movement is one phony emergency after another. Every time it’s a slow news day, leftist media look for the first politician who says “we’ve got to DO SOMETHING NOW!!!” and that’s always a nanny-statist, and nearly always a leftist.
It must be incredibly difficult to come up with an average global temperature. Imagine, for a moment, that the entire NH experiences temperatures exactly 4 degrees above ‘normal’ for exactly one year. Now suppose the entire SH experiences temperatures exactly ‘normal’ for that same year. You would be justified, I think, in concluding that the globe, on average, experienced temperatures 2 degrees above ‘normal’ for that year. But of course the real world isn’t like that. In the real world this bit of the globe over here with a certain area experiences temperatures a bit above ‘normal’ for a certain period of time while that bit over there with a different area has temperatures a bit below ‘normal’ for a different period of time. And what is ‘normal’ anyway? Isn’t that just the way the figures were processed last time? It seems obvious to me that the more real, actual temperature measuring stations there are on the ground, the better. So who decided to close umpteen of them? And why?
The link to UHI urban myth does not work…
Hurting trust in guvmnt? The point of “we the people, by the people, and for the people” was to not EVER trust the guvmnt.
We must never fail to remember that if the government ceases to be run by the common citizen, we are dead in the water as a nation. And we are preciously close to that line in the sand now.
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
I personally find Horner to be a poor spokesman for the realist side of the non-debate. His crooked smirk and snide remarks about climate scientists turn me off. We get enough of that from Gavin, Mann and the hockey team.
That aside though, he does come up with some great tidbits of warmist hyperbole and hypocrisy.
Paris has done exactly the same thing with pollution sensors. Meanwhile the city is becoming more clogged and congested than ever as the ‘greens’ wage war against the car – more and more cycle ‘paths’ (just painted lines) going against the traffic for example. Also lane narrowing and other anti-car stuff. Meanwhile the metro is crowded, unreliable and strike-prone and also pretty much a city centre service. Basically if you live two or three miles out you have no choice but to drive.
Not only they commit fraud by “producing solar energy” at night, but is also antiecological.
How can be ecological a policy that consists on removing plants and trees in the countryside to build a “solar farm” instead? The adjetive “ecological” cannot be more relative.
See no evil, hear no evil, measure no evil… One of my biggest gripes against “climate science” are the biases that Anthony has so elegantly pointed out, namely shutting down temperature stations that don’t agree with the “party line” and relying on weather stations close to turboprop exhaust, paved runways etc. Bad data = bad science.
Seems pretty darn simple to me, why these Hockey Team sort think they can slip this junk methodology past some pretty good public scientists & lay-folk is just beyond me.
The King Has No Clothes.
Not only is a economic fraud, but also the whole idea of solar farms is an environmental fraud.
How can these solar farms be environmentally friendly when in order to build these solar farms they had to remove plants and trees? The words environmental and ecological are meaningless.
Urederra said:
Not only is a economic fraud, but also the whole idea of solar farms is an environmental fraud.
——————————————————————-
Yep, starting with the terminology. They are not ‘farms’, they are industrial structures, as are collections of windmills, which are also dishonestly described as farms.
Try to get permission to build a factory with that size footprint in those places and listen for the squeals from greenies. Destroying the wilderness, ravaging the countryside, blah, blah.
The solution, it seems, is to call your putative factory a ‘farm’.
I’m shocked, shocked. Or maybe not. From another field where they are playing games with numbers:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lies-damn-lies-and-bls-jobs-report
#
#
Steve (Paris) says:
February 6, 2011 at 11:55 am
Paris has done exactly the same thing with pollution sensors. Meanwhile the city is becoming more clogged and congested than ever as the ‘greens’ wage war against the car – more and more cycle ‘paths’ (just painted lines) going against the traffic for example. Also lane narrowing and other anti-car stuff. Meanwhile the metro is crowded, unreliable and strike-prone and also pretty much a city centre service. Basically if you live two or three miles out you have no choice but to drive.
————-
Sounds exactly like Toronto – before we ditched most of the councillors who ran what one journalist dubbed the “Socialist Silly Hall” in elections last November. Hopefully some of the anti-car measures will be lifted or mitigated in the near future. But we still have a ‘green’ provincial premier who has caused Ontario energy prices to rise faster than in any other North American jurisdiction by signing contracts to pay companies running wind and solar farms for energy even when it is not being produced. He’s taking credit for reducing emissions when actually it is the recession in the US and loss of Ontario manufacturing (under his watch) that has caused a sharp decline in air pollution in Southern Ontario. Sigh!
richard verney says:
February 6, 2011 at 10:59 am
Whilst I consider that station drop out is likely to be one factor in the recent observed warming, has anyone compiled the data from the stations that have dropped out and demonstrated what these say and how they compare to the post 1990 trend?
No doubt it would be a big task, but surely it would be very relevant and would demonstrate the extent to which station drop out is a real (as opposed to perceived) factor.
Just changing the data base is enough for me to conclude that the Warmista’s have nothing, and there’s plenty more, and worse, where that came from. I don’t even admit that these temperature readings mean anything to begin with. Gigo characterizes the Climate Science mind. They were never serious about finding out anything useful to Humanity – period! Why humor them?