As members of Congress debate sweeping legislation to address climate change, shouldn't it be newsworthy that of the roughly 25 percent of the weather stations analyzed by independent, non-government volunteers, more than half appear to not meet federal guidelines involving their placement?
Well, meteorologist Anthony Watts, the owner of Watts Up With That, speaking at a climate conference in Boulder, Colorado, on Tuesday, presented his findings concerning the examination of some of the weather stations across America that monitor the nation's temperatures. The news was quite disturbing.
Yet, from what I can tell, outside of a newspaper in Northern California, even as global warming matters are highlighted on a daily basis by a sycophantic press, not one major media outlet thought this was newsworthy.
As reported by the Chico Enterprise Record Thursday (emphasis added, h/t Marc Morano):
The preliminary results show Watts and his volunteers have surveyed about a quarter of the 1,221 stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Of those, more than half appear to fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement.
Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records.
[...]
Watts said his findings show there are potential problems with the placement of many weather stations. Although it's not conclusive, temperature records from many stations, reposted on Watts' blog, showed notable increases after being moved closer to heat sources.
Now, if Watts's findings showed that temperatures measured by these stations were actually understating reality, and that global warming is really worse than is being reported, do you think the press would have been all over this story?
Like white on rice, right?
How disgraceful!
Post facto questions and opinion: What's happened to investigative journalism in this country? Wouldn't this be a perfect story for "60 Minutes" or "20/20"? Do news outlets today only investigate that which supports and/or advances their agenda? How can't this number of weather stations not meeting federal guidelines be something that virtually every press outlet would find newsworthy?
Honestly, this matter being totally buried should make it easy for Americans to conclude not just how biased the media are, but also that they are complicit in a fraud being perpetrated on this nation with grave present and future implications.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!
