It seems NOAA has ‘de-modernized’ the official Death Valley station to use older equipment to make a record more likely.
And still failed.
h/t Kevin B
It seems NOAA has ‘de-modernized’ the official Death Valley station to use older equipment to make a record more likely.
And still failed.
h/t Kevin B
Can we all say Faked but Accurate?
Its still hot as hell,
but not even close to a world record.
–
Now back to your favorite weather channel,
we will dream up some more BS for you tomorrow..
I remember reading ages ago that the Death Valley temp sensor had been moved from its prior location to the Furnace Creek location because there is a nice semi-circular-ish cliff wall that has a focusing effect, making that particular location hotter than the open spot in the middle of the valley where the sensors used to be. In other words, they moved it to the hottest sopt they could find or make, to generate a new record hot temperature.
I would not be in the least surprised to see a bunch of NOAA retards out there this week with heat lamps focused on it, maybe a Bunsen burner or two warming things up.
We SEE you, greenie liars.
Now of course, having actually READ the link (duh!) I see the author included the article I remembered reading. The instrument I mentioned was put up at Badwater, and there’s a topo map showing the nice, big, heat-retaining cliff face behind the newer station.
So not Furnace Creek, Badwater. Still, not bad for an article I read in passing eleven years ago. Go me!
Manufacturing the evidence to suit the ideology. Nothing new here. Just normal for the left.
I’m surprised that they didn’t replace the modern sensors with a druid priest.. with a couple of bushels of chickens so they could check the entrails..
Lord, how many times are we gona have to beat this dead horse. These sob’s just will not quit.
Hi I posted this on a previous climate post. I’m looking for some feedback on what people think about this.
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/6/699.short
According to this, 90% of climate change denial books are NOT peer reviewed. I don’t really buy the ‘well which statistics/authority do you trust’ argument since its one that is leveled our way by climate change supporters when we cite more well reputed studies.
I would just like to see someone explain this to me assuming that this is a legitimate source.