5 Comments

      • Re: “… different rates of snow fall in different parts of the state.”

        One of the many things that made me totally give up on global warming was the revelation that from the time they started collecting the original datasets with old analog thermometers (whose margin of error was greater than the perceived increase intemperature) to today, they have casually dropped the records of the most inconvenient datasets. And — what do you know? — that benefits them and their hypothesis.

        They placed one in the hottest part of the Amazon, and “averaged” the whole rest of the huge country of Brazil based on that reading.

        In Australia, time and again they have been caught in the press blatantly altering the numbers in the raw data, even before running them through their never-disclosed-to-the-scientific-community super-secret algorithms that massage and “correct” the temperature data.

        They start with a patchwork collection of thousands of thermometer stations that inadequately cover the globe. Station coverage of the oceans and of the far northern and southern regions is inconsistent and poor. To cover areas without thermometers, averaging estimates are made from surrounding stations to try to fill in the holes. Political disruptions create large gaps in the temperature record. Around the year 1990, hundreds of temperature stations from the former Soviet Union stopped reporting. During the 1960’s to 1980’s, the network included more than 6,000 temperature stations. But today, fewer than 1,500 stations still provide thermometer data.

        –Steve Goreham, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, 2013

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.