[Islander7]

I served in the USAF in meterology in the 1970s. Most of the forescasters were officers or high ranking enlisted. Their chances for promotion, and in many cases, retention were based on the overall accuracy of their forecasts. There was huge pressure placed on "techs", those who reported the actual conditions, to fudge temperature readings, cloud cover, rain/snow fall, visibility, etc. to 'make' their forecasts accurate. Thus the forecaster's accuracy was faked and the data inaccurate. Many of my fellow techs would report anything asked of them so long as no hazzards to flight operations existed.

I can only speak for my personal experience, but have every reason to believe the practice was common through out the USAF. I was once 'counseled' by a pair of Lt. Col.'s to adjust my data to 'make' the forecast of our commanding officer. I didn't do it. I was a lowly buck sargeant, but I have a sense of integrity. I served abroad and stateside. The pressures and practices were the same.

It is reasonable to assume that historical data used in climate models is obtained from military sources. With that in mind, it seems reasonable that the data is questionable.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks, Islander. What you are saying about the military is something I have long suspected of the civilian side of the weather service.

[Taichi]

As a matter of fact not to long ago I read that a lot of the arctic data relied on now was taken by the Navy, some of it as far back as the 1950's.


I'm sure you're probably right.

[AFPhys]

H. L. Mencken once wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."

-------

A worthwhile quote from this article.

As well, the following:
" It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called "carbon sinking." The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, "the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned." If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don't they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives."

... is something that everyone needs to become aware of when battling against the global warming alarmists.