Watts is Right: Wx Stations Have a Bias

Seems the denialists are giving this the silent treatment.
 
a textbook example of my first law of Climate Science

1. Any rise in temperature must be caused by human actions; any non-human input that produces variability can only do so in a negative direction.
 
BenBurch said:
At least the honest ones are.
Click to expand...

Heh, yeah given the denialist post we did get apparently didn't even understand what the topic was about, I can't say I blame them.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Hehk yeah given the denialist post we did get apparently didn't even understand what the topic was about, I can't say I blame them.
Click to expand...

I think you may not understand my first law. How can I formulate it in a way you might comprehend

1. Any rise in temperature must be caused by human actions :dl:; any non-human input that produces variability :catfight: can only do so in a negative direction:boxedin:.
:dl:

How am I doing?
 
as I understand whats up blog goes around taking photos of weather stations that they believe are effected by urban heat pollution resulting in a positive bias to temperature reading.

The article referenced claims that there is indeed a bias due to weather station siting but they claim it is a negative bias, ie temperatures are being underestimated.

Perfect example of the first law.
 
little grey rabbit said:
as I understand whats up blog goes around taking photos of weather stations that they believe are effected by urban heat pollution resulting in a positive bias to temperature reading.

The article referenced claims that there is indeed a bias due to weather station siting but they claim it is a negative bias, ie temperatures are being underestimated.

Perfect example of the first law.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You feel the researchers that produced this report are lying. Or, could it be that your sarcastic "law" is simply the result of you and your denialist cronies being schooled so bad on every single subject you have tried to sully that you need to retreat to sarcasm to refrain from bursting out in tears?

I'm going to guess it's the latter of the two, as you haven't provided any evidence for the researchers lying.

/Edit: Sorry, that was obviously a false dichotomy. Your "law" could also be cowardly rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
so the law does apply, thank you.

its all lies or truth with you, innit? No room for psychological mechanisms of self-delusion
 
Of course, that "law" basically says that whatever results don't agree with lgr are either wrong or fraudulent. It's also always pertinent to remember that lgr is admittedly ignorant of climate science.

Perfect skepticism...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom