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.
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?
Are we sure the dark red parts in the far north are red enough? (If math is not your cup of tea, jump ahead to points 14 and 15.)
I have read that GISS is the only record that is accurate since it adequately considers what happens in the polar regions, unlike other data sets. I have done some “back of the envelope calculations” to see if this is a valid assumption. I challenge any GISS supporter to challenge my assumptions and/or calculations and show that I am way out to lunch. If you cannot do this, I will assume it is the GISS calculations that are out to lunch.
Here are my assumptions and/or calculations: (I will generally work to 2 significant digits.)
1. The surface area of Earth is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared.
2. The RSS data is only good to 82.5 degrees.
3. It is almost exclusively the northern Arctic that is presumably way warmer and not Antarctica. For example, we always read about the northern ice melting and not what the southern areas are gaining in ice.
4. The circumference of Earth is 40,000 km.
5. I will assume the area between 82.5 degrees and 90 degrees can be assumed to be a flat circle so spherical trigonometry is not needed.
6. The area of a circle is pi r squared.
7. The distance between 82.5 degrees and 90.0 degrees is 40,000 x 7.5/360 = 830 km
8. The area in the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 2.2 x 10^6 km squared.
9. The ratio of the area between the whole earth and the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared/2.2 x 10^6 km squared = 230.
10. People wondered if the satellite record for 2010 would be higher than for 1998. Let us compare these two between RSS and GISS.
11. According to GISS, the difference in anomaly was 0.07 degrees C higher for 2010 versus 1998.
12. According to RSS, it was 0.04 degrees C higher for 1998 versus 2010.
13. The net difference between 1998 and 2010 between RSS and GISS is 0.11 degrees C.
14. If we are to assume the only difference between these is due to GISS accurately accounting for what happens above 82.5 degrees, then this area had to be 230 x 0.11 = 25 degrees warmer in 2010 than 1998.
15. If we assume the site at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php can be trusted for temperatures above 80 degrees north, we see very little difference between 1998 and 2010. The 2010 seems slightly warmer, but nothing remotely close to 25 degrees warmer as an average for the whole year.
Readers may disagree with some assumptions I used, but whatever issue anyone may have, does it affect the final conclusion about the lack of superiority of GISS data to any real extent?
Pamela Gray says:
February 6, 2011 at 11:44 am
“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.”
At least you are still a sovereign nation, and the common citizen can vote out an over zealous government.
Here in the UK almost everything is controlled by unelected commissioners in Brussels, and the new Tory / Liberal coalition has quickly discovered that they have very few powers left to them today. Every one of the United States has more autonomy..
We watch David Cameron squirm as he reneges on legally unfulfillable promises to “reign back Europe” made just 9 months ago, and an emasculated Foreign Secretary, William Hague, seeking permission on what to say from his masters in the newly set up EU Foreign Office, whose Embassies are being rolled out across the world, eclipsing the British Embassies and usurping their proud historical record.
We can take comfort from the example of the Egyptian people now demanding their right to freedom to govern themselves.
Perhaps we too will rise up some day soon against the Wurst and Garlic hegemony.
@Henry Chance
I don’t trust people with a pattern of lying to me, do you? The internet has give us low-life commoners the ability to double-check what the elites tell us. Hockey stick? – now garbage thanks to a retired statistician. Increasing frequency of extreme weather? – not true shows Roger Pielke. Disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in twenty years? – exposed as nonsense by bloggers. Obamacare will lower heath care costs? – wrong says independent analysts and my increased insurance premiums. Swine flu pandemic? – nope, milder symptoms and lower deaths than a “normal” year despite two-thirds of Americans rejecting the vaccine.
If those in charge had realized the power of the internet, they would have strangled it in the crib. More and more people are no longer willing to surrender their personal freedom based on proclamations that begin with: “experts warn…”. Far to often, the experts have been shown to be completely full of it.
BTW, if there is a real crisis, the power of the internet will allow critically-thinking individuals to review the evidence, determine that themselves, and act accordingly.
My mathemagical model (err crystal ball) says that this was their plan, all along. Knowing that as soon as draconian measures were enacted, to ensure improved analysis, they start to include more and more stations. Thus, the temperature drop they would observe could be easily associated with their green efforts and all would be well (for them).
Re CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“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.”
Where has Anthony “pointed out” scientists have shut down stations that don’t agree with the “party line”?
That conspiracy theory has no evidence for it at all.
The graph in this article with the station count and “Average Temperature” is misleading as it fuels that evidence-less conspiracy theory that scientists have removed “cold stations” deliberately to produce warming.
In reality there’s no evidence the stations were removed manually by someone. Quite the contrary it’s far more likely that the station count drop has occurred naturally by a matter of which stations report monthly automatically and which don’t.
There is more warming going on at higher latitudes than lower latitudes. The station drop out was in higher latitudes. Therefore the stations that have been removed are from regions with more warming.
So if we do want to labor under the fallacy that scientists don’t area weight average global temperature, the fact is that removal of those stations has probably reduced the global average warming trend, not increased it.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from my Battles over at Treehugger is that , there is no common ground and there is debating to reach a conclusion. Both sides know exactly what is going on. We know they’re lying and they know that we know that they are lying. So to them it’s no longer about trying to win us over. that’s impossible. And just as we know that no amount of logic or reason will win them over (it’s emotional for them). So now the battle ground is convincing the undecideds. It’s a PR war now.
Re PJB says:
“My mathemagical model (err crystal ball) says that this was their plan, all along. Knowing that as soon as draconian measures were enacted, to ensure improved analysis, they start to include more and more stations. Thus, the temperature drop they would observe could be easily associated with their green efforts and all would be well (for them).”
Absolutely ridiculous. Tell me do you even see a 1990s jump in global temperature in GISTEMP or HadCRUT?
“Reopen the Canadian and Siberian temperature stations closed ca. 1990, prompting ‘the hottest decade on record’.”
Is this false claim in the article going to be corrected?
The graph doesn’t support the supposed idea that temperature station closure in 1990 caused the 90s to become the warmest decade (then) on record. In fact removal of Canadian and Siberian temperature stations may have even reduced the average temperature of the 1990s (given that the temperatures in the records are *anomalies* not *absolute temperature* as used in that graph.
The claim is therefore implying a level of logical support that doesn’t exist.
onion2,
If you can’t see a correlation in this graph, you need to see an optometrist.
Spain should negotiate a free trade agreement with the US and Canada, and then withdraw from the EU. Apart from trade sanctions, what could the EU do about it?
UK John says:
February 6, 2011 at 11:26 am. You mean you can alter the result by moving sensors!
Yep. There always was a place for analog computing.
@onion2
“There is more warming at higher latitudes…”
How do you account for DMI’s 80 North temperature showing that Hansen is a bald-faced liar? Is DMI a denialist organization?
Cyprus!!! Bad air quality!!!!!!!!! Get outa here!
Cyprus, a country of 780,000 people in an area of 3,500 sq miles and over 300 days of sun a year with very little industry but it is causing PM10 particles?
Where is it coming from? As the service sector, including tourism, contributes 70% to the GDP I would suggest that the pollution is being imported by the EU Commission arriving on their holidays. The simple cure would be for them to stay off MY beach!
Oh, by the way, with an average of over 320 days of sun per year we really go for home heating (one of the alleged causes) in a big way! By that I mean gallons and gallons of boiling water for showers at no cost and a swimming pool that heats itself. Wonderfull place to retire to!
onion2 did not unskeptically look at a graph and assume a correlation means anything. onion2 looked a little deeper at causal relationships and realized the graph was being misused – if indeed it is even correct.
The person who created the graph admitted that it is raw data and that scientists make adjustments and use additional data for meaningful temperature reconstructions. Read the site where the graph came from. You folks are being played for fools once again. Try to be skeptical.
mike g: Since you do not present any evidence for your claim, why would you expect skeptical minded people to take you seriously?
@Henry chance It is more likely with social media and instant news we will know about any real crises before the government does.
onion2 says:
February 6, 2011 at 4:30 pm
===========================================================
With apologies in advance /sarc on
Ah Onion, good to read your specious comments … but on what basis do you make them? An onion has many layers, and they can be used to attract bacteria or as a disinfectant, an old world remedy. No doubt an aptly chosen tag. But since you use a pseudonym, how do we know your first name isn’t “Gavin”? 😉 (Well, I reckon Anthony knows)
By the way, my little weather station on shows a high of 40.9 degrees C and a low of minus 39.3 degrees C for the last year. Last week it was 30 below C, two days ago it was plus 10.6 degrees C, and as I type this it is minus 20 C. It is really hard for me to get excited about a fraction of a degree change in the global temperature over the last 30 years, but then as a number of people have pointed out, the averages are interesting data, but in the end, that is all it is without proper interpretation. Of course if the Antarctic Peninsula warms enough and snows so much that it makes the local penguins go extinct, that is a bad thing, but it is local. A rise in temperature where I live is a good thing. But that too is local. I am sure some places are seeing significant changes. However, in my six decades plus of observation, la plus la change, la plus la meme chose. Sometimes it is hot and dry, sometimes it is wet and cold, sometimes it is hot and wet, sometimes it is cold and wet.
Sometimes the devil is in the details, not the big picture.
Which takes us back to the graph and the declining weather stations. Details. Adjusted and Homogenized. Love those three words – now prominently displayed on the Environment Canada climate information web site. Seems to be a catchy little turn of phrase. Like a milkshake. Or chopped onions.
/sarc off
They figured out what their problem was, Sensors in the wrong places, so they moved them and got the readings that they needed. What is the problem. Climate scientists do it all the time. It is call the “Nature Trick”. pg
I join in the onion slicing:
>Where has Anthony “pointed out” scientists have shut down stations
>that don’t agree with the “party line”?
No need. The graph speaks for itself. As the number of reporting stations was cut, the reported average temperature from the others jumped up, so much so that it is now considered necessary by the ‘cutters’ to correct for it. Admitting the need to correct the higher temperatures finishes the debate.
The removal of the stations increased the apparent temperature so much that is considered necessary to apply some cooling factor to them. The amount factored in is not known. Maybe it changes now and then, we don’t know. It is a fact (not factor) that the effect of removing stations supported the argument that Canadian temperatures are rising, ameliorated by the possible application of an unknown cooling factor to make the rise not look too out of step with other data series.
>That conspiracy theory has no evidence for it at all.
Do not assume conspiracy when hidebound incompetence and slavish devotion to Suzukian pseudoscience will explain everything. If all the temperatures records were re-worked repeatedly, say seven times, and each time the past got colder and the present got warmer, that would be evidence of a conspiracy, right?
>The graph in this article with the station count and “Average Temperature” is
> misleading as it fuels that evidence-less conspiracy theory that scientists have
> removed “cold stations” deliberately to produce warming.
It is not clear why the reporting stations were removed because it makes no sense at all it you want to know what the temperature is or was. It is crystal clear that the removal increased the average reported temperatures as the graph shows. No rocket science there. The areas with no data now have estimations placed in their empty boxes. There is no rational explanation for doing so as it hides knowledge and increases potential errors.
It would be interesting and reasonable to include them again (they are still there) to see what the actual temperatures are. I cannot say what will happen because they are not reporting the data. We can however guess that if the stations were included the average reported temperatures would drop as much as they rose when they were initially subtrated from the series. Surely that much is obvious. If it is not obvious, perhaps you could give it some more thought.
Take all the time you need.
Letterman’s “Stupid Human Tricks”? Here’s one stupid human with a trick that sucks Letterman right in.
“No Data” in the Arctic, this is corect.
The problem was even greater when comparing GISS Arctic with DMI (ERA40+T511) in the area:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/
…!
K.R. Frank and thanks to Chris Horner.
By the way: Is there any news on the case about Manns things? We had a debate in Denmark about this. I do find it intereting that half a million dollar has been used to keep some documents hidden if there was not anything really important to hide… Perhaps none of us has a clue what that might be. And as i understand it Greenpeace had no problem getting similar info on McKittrick etc. Hmm.. Is there a case still? should there never have been a case… opinions are many 🙂
Hellp from Spain
I live in madrid and i have to say that this amount of pollution is from diesel cars and buses. Buildings heat systems uses gas, so it does not produce any NOx or particles.
Diesel cars are about 80% of total cars. This pollution is the price we pay for not produce CO2, because CO2 emissions on a diesel car are lower than on a gasoline car. In Spain, the more CO2 a car produces, the more taxes you pay when you bought it
Sorry for my english
Graham February 7, 2011 at 1:21 am
I’m afraid I didn’t get past the bit where McKibben referred to “Our best climatologist, James Hanson”.
On the trail of Government Policies Having Unintended Consequences, I love this little gem (darned if I know where I found it; could have been Jo Nova).
Ok. Nice meaty ‘feed in’ tariffs from solar arrays.
Nice idea. Ever resourceful, the guys who would take advantage of such schemes.
Some utilities have been finding that they were paying handsomely for feed-ins from solar arrays… at night..??
The guys mentioned above (I wish I was this resouceful) had been using – day and night – DIESEL GENERATORS..!!
Its a cracker, isn’t it..?
That’s pretty conclusive: removing thermometers causes global warming. How more obvious does it get?
I’m skeptical of the EU’s assumption that Spain’s air pollution is Spain’s emissions. Perhaps the geography, sunny climate, or wind patterns exacerbate a small problem into a big one. Spain is not the largest economy in Europe, and their economy right now is in the tank.
PaulH says:
February 6, 2011 at 10:28 am
“Kind of like when the government bean-counters exclude food and energy from their core inflation calculations.”
Yep. And get everyone into part-time jobs. Bingo, we got unemployment down under 10% again. Vote for us.
Werner Brozek says: February 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm
[…]
Readers may disagree with some assumptions I used, but whatever issue anyone may have, does it affect the final conclusion about the lack of superiority of GISS data to any real extent?
No it does not affect the lack of superiority of GISS, crap is crap. I spent years beating IC processing in line with temperature measurement and control. Any data set with a step function in sampling, concurrent with a step finction in mean, must have the cause of the step function removed to be worth more than a pile of leeched out manure.
onion2 says: February 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Re CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“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.”
Where has Anthony “pointed out” scientists have shut down stations that don’t agree with the “party line”?
Where Anthony may or may not have “pointed out” the shut down, it has been covered extensively here for years. Here is another graphic.
http://i44.tinypic.com/23vjjug.jpg
If we are to believe that temperature is important, why stop measuring it? There is a big fat lie here somewhere…
As an athermist, the graph correlating global temperature to the number of stations is one of my favourites. Is there an updated version of it somewhere?
thanks
How many times do people like myself, Ian W, E. M. Smith etc have to say, temperature is not a good metric for energy!
A little experiment. Heat an oven to 200°C. Open the door & feel the warm air released. Place a bowl, (Pyrex), full of water inside. Let the water warm. Open the door again and feel the difference in perceived warmth.
The air released will be the same temperature, only the energy content changes.
As an aside, I’ve never heard of anyone being burned by the air from an oven, (even one laden with moisture), quite a few by water above about 60°C. (I think it’s 63°C but don’t quote me).
DaveE.
They have to use temperature, David, because they can’t actually measure the energy content and if they could, as with the ocean, it would not show what they want it to show. The public does not understand this, and the alarmist scientists are well aware of this fact.
Mark
My understanding is that GISS doesn’t actually measure anything more in the polar regions, but rather “smears” the data from what is measured a thousand miles or more away across the blind areas…giving the impression that it is more comprehensive. This makes the data from a handful of stations weighed dozens or more times what can be justified.
Two corrections:
The link should be: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/more-stupid-environmentalist-tricks/ All the “teaaudit.org” stuff stuck on the end of the original is junk.
As for “closed” stations, they’re still there and recording just fine. But they’re being ignored. CS and EAU and GISS have ADD.
Global warming is the biggist con jobs thats ever been perpatraited on the world by GREENPEACE,AL GORE and the various green hucksters and con-men like GORE and STRONG