Richard Anderson-Sprecher’s Sept. 10 article questioned the common practice of only reporting results that are supported by its related data base. He actually claimed that averages are more precise than the data base that they represent. If so then why is it proper for climate scientists to only accept rounded data from their weather stations but then not round off the averages?

As a retired researcher and engineer I am very sensitive to the proper handling of data and calibration. My laboratory became accredited under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) around 2000 and before that all equipment calibrations were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). According to ISO, results from data that fall outside of the calibration range cannot be reported. This includes data calibration accuracy. Therefore it is unethical to report results that are finer than the equipment’s calibration. Let’s say two individuals observe an event from far away. Observer No. 2 watched the event using binoculars and observer No. 1 did not have binoculars. Both wrote down their observations but both stated they saw the same event. When pressed observer No. 1 admitted that his description is based mostly on a hunch because he could not clearly see what happened. I’m sorry but I have to go along with observer No. 2 as only he can support what he reported.

In addition to the NOAA reporting requirements described in NWS 10-1302 we must also consider that most of the older weather stations saw increases in their recorded temperatures due to urban sprawl. NOAA scientists corrected this data but it looks like they used a fudge factor based on a hunch. News about this has been suppressed.

Al Gore and Sen. Harry Reid enriched themselves by investing in green corporations funded by government grants or prior knowledge of upcoming legislation. The Reid family has profited from their support for a Chinese solar power plant in Nevada. They provide government finds to their companies while taxing their competitors. I am not for polluting the planet but the CO² issue seems more like a scam since your soda still fizzes with CO².

Derek Mancinho


(3) comments


" I am not for polluting the planet but the CO² issue seems more like a scam since your soda still fizzes with CO²."

I'm having a hard time figuring out what this statement has to do with climate change. I'm sure it's profound, so please elucidate.



CO2 has been blamed for global warming. later this term was changed to "climate change" since the planet did not warm as expected. CO2 is carbon dioxide, it is the gas that is produced and pumped into your soda and beer to make the drinks fizzy. In its frozen form CO2 is known as "dry ice" which you can buy blocks of at WalMart. If it so urgent that we tax the fuels we use to the point of economic destruction then why do we still purposely produce CO2??? Why because it is easier to blame an inert gas that comes out of an exhaust pipe. And therefore if it can be called evil then it can be used to raise more tax money from the citizens.


Thanks for the clarification, Derek.
Global climate change is a scam because people invest in solar energy, and there's carbon dioxide in soda pop.

Have I got that right?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.