Gas Station Owners Hate High Gas Prices

Gas station owners like Rob Garrett say they don’t like high gas prices, because it cuts their profit margin and they have to rely on things like car washes and snack food to make a profit, according to USA Today.

Customers often don’t understand that he is a small-business owner, not an extension of “Big Oil.” Garrett owns two stations in Northern Virginia and one in Washington, D.C., under the Sunoco name, and has been in business for nine years.
Lately, he says, he and his employees have been receiving a lot of complaints from customers. Although he tries to explain his situation, people don’t want to hear it.

“We’re the face” of the oil companies, Garrett says. The money the oil companies are making, he says, is “not getting to us.”

Garrett says he makes a profit of about $0.05 a gallon after taxes, credit card fees, etc. There’s always price gouging, but as we learned recently, gouging usually takes place when gas prices fall and gas station owners keep them artificially inflated. —MEGHANN MARCO

Gas profits ‘not getting to us,’ station owner says [USAToday]
(Photo: Ron’s Log)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. acambras says:

    Not to mention they probably get tired of customers’ tirades about how ridiculously high the gas prices are, when it’s not their fault.

  2. Godz says:

    Gas is $0.05 higher than it should be! I am outraged…

  3. mopar_man says:

    Gas station owners like Rob Garrett say they don’t like high gas prices, because it cuts their profit margin and they have to rely on things like car washes and snack food to make a profit, according to USA Today.

    I think that’s been evident for awhile now. I remember when there used to be small gas-only stations around (which I preferred). Those all closed up and all you find now are “mini-marts” with gas. They must do alright selling food, milk and carwashes though. I live in a small city and all the stations around are clean and modern. If fact, the one down the street is adding on to the building.

  4. nursetim says:

    You also should take into account state and federal gas taxes when looking at who gets what from each dollar you spend on gas. Combined, you pay over $.50 per gallon on average. When congress talks about high gas prices, a reduction in gas taxes never seems to come up.

  5. Hawk07 says:

    Sean Hannity had a pretty good special on what goes into the cost of a gallon. Unfortunately, he’s a polarizing figure and liberals won’t listen to him.

    We could see a lot lower prices if the states and feds decided to lower and temporarily cut taxes on gas.

  6. bnet41 says:

    @acambras:

    Yea, I can’t imagine to some of the tirades those poor workers have to listen to. I never understand why people go off on the lowest people in a organization. In this case not even employee’s of the oil/gas companies. I’m sure it’s a lot to deal with for a $7 an hour job.

  7. timmus says:

    If snack foods and car washes are so important, I wonder if some of the gas stations would benefit from taking a loss on the gas just to get more people to come.

  8. QuirkyRachel says:

    Heh. Speaking of taxes on gas, raise your hand if you’re from Chicago….

  9. willie wampum says:

    semi related post by harvard economist Gregory Mankiw on the price gouging bill being passed by the House and Senate. I’m not a Republican by any means, but I am an economist and the post makes a great point.

    [gregmankiw.blogspot.com]

    go easy on me, it’s my first post at the consumerist.com

  10. Fuzz says:

    My dad used to run a gas station with service bays in one of the Banff(super-busy tourist trap) and the only way he could stay in business was the service bays and a small store. Margins on gas are minuscule, and don’t even cover the costs of running the place, let alone eking out a living.

  11. bbbici says:

    I’m sorry, this does not compute. Gas retailers’ margin per gallon should be the same percentage as always. I can’t imagine why any commoditity seller (especially in a market with daily and expected price fluctuations) would eat the margin so a customer could save $0.01 per unit.

    nonsense.

  12. willie wampum says:

    @QuirkyRachel: chicago suburbs right here.

  13. Skiffer says:

    @timmus: Some do take a loss on the gas – especially ones that combo with big box stores like sam’s club or 7-11, etc.

  14. Skiffer says:

    @bbbici: Yeah, I don’t quite get it either…maybe it’s more so because “small-business” stations have to compete with “big oil owned” stations, who don’t care about margins at the pump, a la the Wal-mart effect.

  15. bob2008 says:

    I use to work for ***** – insert 5 letter company here – and these small business owners are right. They also have to pay large rental sums to these corporations.

    The refining division followed by distribution is what makes the profit for *****. The consumer never ever interacts with these entities. The only interaction small business’s have with those divisions is that they HAVE TO buy gas ONLY from the distribution arm of *****, there is NO REAL COMPETITION, contracts make sure of that. In fact the price is different based on where the small business is. This is not just because of transportaion costs but because of how much the analysts think they can squeeze out of an area.

    Oh and the only thing you are buying at a branded gas station is the brands own additive. The bulk of the product, the gas, is the same at all the stations. Even the unbranded gas stations use a generic additive which is usually made by Chevron and is 1/3 the strength. Most cars run just fine on the cheapest gas – there are state/federal laws that make sure this is so.

    Also, do you think it’s a conflict of interest for a oil company to own or be partners in a company that trades oil and gas on the ‘open’ market???? Remember Enron’s ‘open’ market.

    HMMM

  16. bbbici says:

    Then it is really stupid to continue operating an independent gas station when faced with competition from a vertically integrated corporate gas-station chain capable of loss-leading on its primary product. Some business models just aren’t meant to be. Sad, but that’s business.

  17. jeffislouie says:

    Chicago here too – things are getting pricey….
    HOWEVER, allow me to remind those of us that are freaking out that the increase in gas prices amounts to nothing more than a liberal trap intended to sucker you into outrage.
    Let’s take a look at the numbers, shall we?
    My car has a 17 gallon tank (approximately). Last year in my area, regular unleaded could be had for around 3.08. Now gas can be found for around 3.59.
    That means that it used to cost me about $52.36 to fill up last year.
    Now it costs me $61.03.
    That’s right. All that bitching about an extra $8.67 a tank.
    Is the $9 going to kill me? No.
    Is it going to kill you?
    Maybe you shouldn’t own a car? Just saying.
    Add to that the idea that you can likely make that up by brown bagging lunch twice a week, driving slower (no more burnouts at every stoplight), and making coffee at home instead of feeding at the Starbuck teat.
    Believe me, I used to flip out every time gas prices went up. That is, until I did the numbers.
    Now I don’t really care all that much.
    But why a liberal trap?
    Because they are the ones responsible for the high gas prices to begin with.
    Without getting too deep into it, here’s a very topical breakdown of how the party of the people have made prices jump:
    1- Limitations on new refineries – there is oil off the east and west coasts. They’ve just made serious restrictions on refineries and drill platforms, keeping refining capability low and untapped resources almost untouchable.
    B- E85 speculation. The price of crude starts the whole gas price cycle. By pushing so hard to find an alternative in the not-so efficient and poorly thought out corn based fuel (complete with less power, worse MPG, and similar if not higher cost to the customer – plus the fact that it takes gas to make), it has made oil speculators jittery and led to crazy fluctuations in oil prices.
    iii- taxes. that’s right. Taxes. on average, 50 cents a gallon. More money for the feds! Hooray. When was the last time a politician offered to fix fuel costs by reducing or eliminating the taxes?
    Four – fluctuating formulations. Did you know that based on where you live and the season you are in, you get a different formulation of gasoline? Summer gas in Illinois is not the same as winter gas in colorado. Heck, it’s not the same as summer gas in colorado. There is a confusing array of formulations. Each time oil companies are forced to make that change, gas prices go up as supply shifts and demand remains constant. Gas prices would go down if there was one formulation for cold weather and another for warm. I know, too simple. Shrillary says that we should just take oil profits away from industry and redistribute it amongst the poor. A great idea…. If you are interested in living in the cold war USSR. Sort of.
    By the way, get ready for the cost of milk to jump – another byproduct of E85 is an increase in the supply of cow feed. I’ve heard a gallon could cost as much as $4 a gallon by the end of summer.

  18. Fuzz says:

    Oh, one of the other problems is how the gas is bought. Say you fill up your storage tanks at $3/gallon, and sell it at $3.05. Then the next day all the stations around you fill up there tanks, but they get it for $2.95, so they can sell it at $3.00, but you have a 2 or 3 day supply that you paid $3.00 for. Do you take the loss, or keep your price higher and lose business on all your other sales?

    Now, you may be saying it works the other way, too . . but usually at least one of your neighbors can get cheaper gas, so you all suffer, whereas if you get cheaper gas, you can force everyone else to suffer, or you all get gas at the same price, and nobody gets the benefit. In the end, yuo have less chance of a positive outcome than a negative one, as a station owner, and can expect no help from your supplier.

    I remember ti being a tricky game to play, especially before long weekends.

  19. peokuk says:

    @timmus: except in states like Minnesota that have a minumum gas price law…

  20. adamondi says:

    Gasoline has been a loss leader for a long time. People act as though the razor-thin margins on gasoline is a new thing. It has been this way for decades. That is why all the stuff in a convenience store is so expensive compared to a regular grocery store.

    A profit of %0.05 per gallon is the norm for all gas stations, not just independents. The reason oil companies that also own gas stations make a profit at all is because they can own the whole supply chain. Regardless, profit margins are still far higher on merchandise in the convenience stores than they will ever be on gasoline.

  21. adamondi says:

    Doh! That should be $0.05, not %0.05.

  22. llryuujinll says:

    For those who complain about taxes on gas, those taxes haven’t changed in years, and the big oil is making record profit. So do the math. If oil cost more to buy, produce, and refine and big oil is raising prices to offset that increase then big oil’s profile should stay the same not increase to record highs. While it may be fine to be greedy, since it is capitalism at its finest. I’m not sure its ethical to do that with an essential resource as oil.

  23. mopar_man says:

    @jeffislouie:

    So you’re saying it’s ok for gas to be so high? Last summer it was $2.00/gallon where I am. Now it’s $3.16, down from $3.4x a few weeks ago (before the long weekend. Coincidence?). I see no reason for it be above $2/gallon.

  24. castlecraver says:

    @jeffislouie:

    $9 multiplied by the number of times one fills up his tank over the course of a season is quite significant. Not to mention the costs that get passed on to the consumer due to the increased cost of travel and transportation. It looks like you forgot a few things when you decided to “run the numbers.” And yes, $9 isn’t exactly throwaway money to people like myself on low or fixed incomes. Yeah, I know. Who’d expect a political conservative to care about those folks?

    As for your (misguided) points:

    1) Its a balance between protecting the environment and energy production. Personally, I’d rather leave ANWR as it is and pay a little more for gas (or more likely, do what I can to choose a different transportation option). You may feel differently, but to say that liberals are limiting new refineries for no good reason is incredibly shortsighted.

    B [sic]) Its called sustainability and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I wouldn’t expect your garden-variety wingnut to consider the non-economic implications of alternative energy, but there you go. Granted, it’s not a perfect solution, and certainly has it’s drawbacks. Regardless, don’t you think the rapidly escalating political instability in the largest oil-producing region on Earth might have a teensy bit more to do with the “oil speculators getting jittery” than a bunch of hippies?

    iii (seriously, pick one outline style for crying out loud): Actually, Frank O’Bannon (former Democrat governor of Indiana) did exactly that back in 2000. I know. I was there.

    Four: Wow! I had no idea! It couldn’t possibly be as simple as warm vs cold. Geographic conditions, availability, and application couldn’t possibly also have anything to do with that. Nor could the companies change their formulation based on profit margin. Nope… its all the environmental laws. Sorry, but once again, its a tradeoff. From your perspective, environmental laws clearly have no impact besides a negative economic one. For those of us living in the real world, however, we might be able to see some positives.

    Isn’t it worth your $9/tank?

  25. 50 cents a gallon tax on gas seems fairly small as most of that money pays for the road system we have. I think I remember seeing a Cato study that said that americans do not pay the actual road cost through gasoline taxes in all states. The Libertarians would know Jeff.

    Refineries have improved the ability to create more with what they have over the years. Technology!

    I will agree E85 is a joke and all ethanol should have their subsidies removed. Then BioDiesel would take off.

  26. jeffislouie says:

    @castlecraver:
    First of all, get a sense of humor.
    I’m sorry that you can’t see the light humor in using different outline styles.
    Next time, I’ll consult my writers guide and make sure to conform to the rules so as not to upset you.
    Now, let’s keep away from calling me a cold hearted conservative and I’ll stray from calling liberals hippies – cool? That way we can, you know, discuss the issue without hurting each others feelings. Hippy. Just kidding.
    “$9 multiplied by the number of times one fills up his tank over the course of a season is quite significant.”
    Really?
    k. Let’s say you fill up once a week, all the way.
    9×52 is an additional $500. A year.
    Ouch. I spent $9 at lunch today, meaning if I brownbag it a few times a week instead of eating out, I’m even. Deal.
    “And yes, $9 isn’t exactly throwaway money to people like myself on low or fixed incomes. Yeah, I know. Who’d expect a political conservative to care about those folks?”
    I’ll ignore the childishness of this comment in an effort to keep it friendly.

    ‘1) Its a balance between protecting the environment and energy production. Personally, I’d rather leave ANWR as it is and pay a little more for gas (or more likely, do what I can to choose a different transportation option). You may feel differently, but to say that liberals are limiting new refineries for no good reason is incredibly shortsighted.’

    It looks like you argument is that you’d rather pay more for gas than go get the oil that is sitting in anwr. Well, then. Discussion over. I guess you don’t mind the extra $9 after all. Personally, I’ve never been there and I never plan on going either. Plus, chances are that the environmental damage would be minimal anyway.

    “Its called sustainability and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I wouldn’t expect your garden-variety wingnut to consider the non-economic implications of alternative energy, but there you go. “
    Riiiiight. Here’s the catch though – 1) It takes gasoline to process the corn (tractors, shipping, etc.) and the energy it takes to produce E85 is more than the output. That’s called an ‘energy deficit’. And it robs your vehicle of power. And MPG. And it costs more than gas. And no one has proven that global warming is for real yet. But that’s another discussion and doesn’t belong here. Hmmm. Benefits – possible reduction of greenhouse gasses. Negatives – higher cost, reduced mileage and reduced power. No thanks! But as long as we are talking about NON economic factors, what about increased dairy products? Many cows (the best ones anyway) eat corn. Now, feed prices have gone up. Don’t be too surprised when milk is as expensive as gas. Towns in Mexico have people suffering from malnutrition because corn for E85 is worth more than corn for tortillas. Awesome. Not a real good selling point for me.
    more in the next post…..

  27. castlecraver says:

    @jeffislouie:

    an additional $500. A year. Ouch.

    Uh, yeah, that is kind of an ouch. Did you even read what I said?

    It looks like you argument is that you’d rather pay more for gas than go get the oil that is sitting in anwr.

    Sort of. Once again, did you even read what I said?

    And no one has proven that global warming is for real yet.

    more in the next post…..

    Seriously. Don’t bother. I’ve listened to the global warming deniers, and you won’t make any goddamned sense on this issue either.

  28. jeffislouie says:

    @castlecraver:
    continued:
    “Four: Wow! I had no idea! It couldn’t possibly be as simple as warm vs cold. Geographic conditions, availability, and application couldn’t possibly also have anything to do with that. Nor could the companies change their formulation based on profit margin. Nope… its all the environmental laws. Sorry, but once again, its a tradeoff. From your perspective, environmental laws clearly have no impact besides a negative economic one. For those of us living in the real world, however, we might be able to see some positives.”

    So let me understand this – the environmentally based legislation that forces numerous reformulations are okay with you even though the environmental effect is, at best, debatable?
    That’s funny. Really. Especially since gas in Indiana during the summer is formulated differently than it is in Illinois (where I am from) and Ohio and michigan, and Iowa, etc. even though the climates are virtually identical. Clever, but kool-aid-ish.
    The reality is that the oil companies don’t make any more profit on any seasonal gas. This is pure liberal myth (not an insult to you, just a statement of fact). The left in this country keeps talking about how much profit oil companies made. I did a little investigating. Know why gouging ISN’T happening? It’s because the only measure of gouging is profit MARGIN, not dollars.
    The profit margins have stayed steady and not increased even though profit dollars have gone up. The left doesn’t like to discuss this because then there is no controversy and no blame. See what I mean? You assume that the companies are evil, so you assume they make more money on the formulations. This is not the case. The formulation variables are expensive and there are strict rules about gouging, so they pass the cost on to the customer. That’s why gas costs more during the summer.
    If profit margin stays the same and profit dollars go up, what gives? Simple economics. Sell more of product A at the same margin B and you earn more $$$.
    Dig? Gas demand is growing while margins stay the same.
    Here it is broken down.
    If I sell you a pen for $1 and my mark up is 10%, I make 10 cents. If I sell you 100 pens at the same price and same margin, I make $10. I’m not evil for doing this either.
    If prices go up because of cost and that pen sells for $1.50 and I keep my margin the same (which is ethical) I earn 15 cents a pen. My margin remains the same even though prices went up. That’s standard business and completely ethical.
    And SOME environmental laws have an effect.
    But there is mounting evidence supporting the idea that the human impact on the environment is so miniscule that it is a wash.
    Remember – the ‘consensus’ debate isn’t rooted in science, just a consensus – which stands in contrast to scientific rules. It only takes one person to be right, not a consensus.
    Are we supposed to believe that data from 100 years ago is solid? Weren’t Americans still using ice to cool their food instead of freezers? People didn’t have freezers in their homes until the late 20’s. People were still using outhouses. I’m not sure that the records from that era were accurate.
    But the funny part?
    You condemn me for saying that $9 a tank isnt a big deal, then defend the very reasons that gas prices are high.
    Which is it? Is it a fair tradeoff (personally, I can figure out a way to save $9 a week without feeling it)? Or is it too costly?
    My point was that it aint no thang.

  29. shdwsclan says:

    Well, the only way to do it is to have your own mantis pump, your own smelter, and sell your own gasoline….

  30. jeffislouie says:

    @castlecraver:
    “Uh, yeah, that is kind of an ouch. Did you even read what I said?”

    I did.
    $500 is not a lot to cut back from your budget.
    Shop at Costco.
    Buy items on sale.
    Stop smoking cigs.
    Eat out less.
    Sell your old stuff.
    Turn out the lights and AC if you aren’t home.
    Not tough.
    Put another way – there are 365 days a year. That means you have to cut $1.37 from your daily expenses to break even. I could do that without thinking about it – drinking the coffee supplied free at work instead of buying one cup of crappy coffee at a store. Done.

    “Sort of. Once again, did you even read what I said?”

    I did. You said that you are willing to pay more if it meant anwr is intact. Which makes your argument that the an extra $9 a tank is too expensive extremely weak. Which is it? Is it better to feel good about the elk in Anwr or save the money?

    “Seriously. Don’t bother. I’ve listened to the global warming deniers, and you won’t make any goddamned sense on this issue either. “

    How terribly typical and sad. Another worshipper at the church of owl gores catastrophic environmentalism.
    If humans are to blame for global warming, please explain the warming on mars. Are there many humans driving hummers up there?
    How about the new evidence that the ice on kilamanjaro is melting because of radiation due to increased solar activity, not greenhouse gassses?
    Hmmm?
    How about the fact that several reputable environmental scientists are changing their opinion and distancing themselves from the global warming hystericals?
    Guess you missed those stories.

    Since it is painfully obvious you aren’t interested in having a sensible discussion about anything today, kindly stop posting so the adults can speak.
    Some of us enjoy using open minds and facts to discuss issues, not mantra delivered by a political hack with the odd ability to create religion out of shoddy science….
    You’ve already made up your mind.
    Good for you.
    Unlike you, I haven’t. This doesn’t make me a ‘denier’, it makes me a skeptic.
    Why is it anytime anyone disputes the religion of global warming, people pull a page from the liberal hitbook and call them deniers?
    Hmmm?
    What are you afraid of?
    Let me ask you this:
    Isn’t it selfish of us to pretend we are doing this for mother earth? The earth was around for billions of years before we came along. It doesn’t need us. We need it. So at best, this is a selfish excercise.
    Without us, the earth would be just as happy as a lifeless spinning rock.

  31. castlecraver says:

    @jeffislouie: You’ve managed to convince yourself you’re right on both issues, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I’ll summarize and make it simple for you:

    – $9 per tank is not an insignificant amount of money to me. I never stated that $9/tank is “too much.” You might dismiss my comment as childish, but I’m sick of people with way more money than me try to tell me, “aw, you can surely afford an extra ____ can’t you?” You can run the numbers any way you like, but it’s not going to change the fact that some people are going to be uncomfortable absorbing the increased cost into their budget, regardless of how small you make it look and how insignificant it might be to you personally.
    – If gas could be cheaper, that’d be great by me, but I’m not willing to sacrifice the environment for it.
    – If, therefore, gas prices remain high as a result of your laughable “liberal trap” conspiracy, I’m willing to pay more when I have no other choice, or much more likely, as I originally stated try to adjust my transportation needs. Fortunately, I’m one of those people for whom personal car transportation is more of a convenience than a need.

    Its a priority decision, and to build upon your grossly biased oversimplification of the environmental vs economic tradeoffs, my personal choice would not be “$500/yr or preserve ANWR,” but more along the lines of “take the bus or preserve ANWR.” You’re very quick to point out the ways someone can spare an extra $9 a week from their budget, but that’s not the only way one can compensate. Therefore, the straw man argument that you’ve assembled for me really isn’t all that weak to begin with. I’ve been doing so to a small degree for many months now, and would it really be such a terrible thing for people to continue to carpool more? Gas might cost more, but we use less of it. We get where we’re going, don’t end up spending a ton on fuel, cut down on air pollution, and ANWR gets to stay pristine. Everyone wins! Woohoo!

    And speaking of air pollution….

    This whole “church of global warming” thing that the so-called “skeptics” have thrown out recently always makes me laugh. Churches generally choose faith over reason, supernatural over scientific hypotheses based on observed data, and blind hope over logic. The evidence is on our side, and if you’d like to argue that its not based on the tired, obscure, debunked, and cherry-picked climate change denier examples, well, you need to take a little more unbiased approach to your research. If anyone should be characterized as a “church,” its not us, Copernicus.

    Until you do, you ought to stop misrepresenting yourself as someone with a well-reasoned opinion and go have yourself a nice cold glass of Kool-Aid. You’re ruining it for those of us who actually operate by the scientific method instead of thinking “skepticism” means jamming our fingers in our ears when the smart folks don’t agree with our preconceived notions and anachronistic worldview.

  32. jeffislouie says:

    @castlecraver:
    Right. Got it. I’m the one who has made up his mind.
    Because all the evidence, carefully collected and openly peer reviewed is indisputable.
    Not one reputable scientist has stepped up and said that the science is flawed.
    Not one person has pointed out factual innacuracies.
    Oh wait….
    Many have. More continue to do so on an almost daily basis.
    And you are also correct – one couldn’t possibly compare the global warming movement to a cultish church.
    After all, it’s not like Owl Gore is training people to travel the country and deliver his fluff speech to schools and libraries around the country.
    Oh wait. He is. They are.
    For some reason, folks like you get their panties in a twist anytime anyone questions the ‘consensus’ theories, all of which are unprovable. And for someone who claims to use the scientific method, you sure seem to display a total lack of knowledge of that method.
    Sadly, I could never challenge you properly to think beyond what you think you know.
    The case is closed for you, sadly.
    I wonder if you’ll ever take a second to consider the very notion of a consensus and how it stands starkly in contrast to the very scientific method you are happy to ignore. In science, there is a saying – it only takes one person to find truth.
    Consensus is defined as ‘A collective opinion or general agreement.’
    The scientific method is a procedure used by scientists to test hypotheses by making predictions about the outcome of an experiment before the experiment is performed. The results provide support or refutation of the hypothesis.
    Now, the only testing done is by easily disputable and highly innaccurate computer modeling.
    Your side isn’t so much wrong as they are not right. If human based emissions are to blame for global warming, then why is Mars warming again? SUV’s?
    How has the data been tested? How has the theory been tested? How was the hypothesis formed and who formed it? What is the hypothesis? Where is this testing done and using what controls?
    It’s all built around computer models, speculation, and a willful ignorance of other contributing factors – you know, like increased solar activity, internal geothermal geological occurances, the total failure of the kyoto protocols in participating countries and more.
    And since you’ve already branded me the anti-christ, I’d like to impart some knowledge on you.
    I believe we need to be good stewards of the earth. But I also believe that how far you wish to take your desire to be a good steward should be a personal decision, not a decision made for you by government or forced on you by neo-radicals with their own agenda.
    Want to know why Owl Gore pushes carbon credits?
    Because he owns a company that supplies them. He makes money for every credit purchased. And that money is mostly wasted, resulting in a greatly reduced effect. Carbon credit dollars don’t result in any real net effect, save for the money generated.
    But none of that matters to you.
    Because gas is expensive.
    Boo-freakin-hoo.
    Stop driving.
    Me? I’ll pony up the extra $9 a tank and will do so without whining and crying.

  33. jeffislouie says:

    Yet more data was released today critical of the ‘global warming consensus’.
    I know, it’s not quite as cool as siding with such scientific geniuses as Leonardo DiCaprio, but it’s actual science.
    It turns out that the data is collected from around 1221 or so temperature measuring stations. Government standards say that these temperature measuring stations should be 100 feet from buildings, not on a hot concrete service, and so forth. Well, it would seem that these regulations aren’t being adhered to.
    Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes about Anthony Watts of Chico, California. Watts is a former TV meteorologist. Watts started searching out and looking at some of the 1,221 weather stations that the federal government uses to gather data on temperatures.
    They found temperature measuring stations sitting right next to barrels where trash is burned. Some are sitting directly in front of air conditioning vents. Others are located near the tarmac on parking lots and at airports. Still others are found surrounded by high buildings. Believe it or not, he even found one official temperature measuring station sitting directly behind an airport ramp where it can be routinely subject to jet blast! Just what do you think the locations of these official government temperature measuring stations might mean to all of these temperature measurements that are being used by OwlGore and others to convince us of global warming! In other words, the very data being used to convince people that global warming is a real threat is being compromised. Regulations are being ignored and the data is very inaccurate. Add to that the fact that the thermostats used to measure temperature variations aren’t precise at all : most are +/- 2+ degrees. So if our measurements show an increase of less than 2 degrees over the last 100 years, how comfortable are you with trusting them?
    Here’s the link:
    [www.norcalblogs.com]
    I know, it’s just science again standing in the way of a political statement and movement.
    Who cares about science!
    And I’M the one with the closed mind that ignores scientific reasoning.
    Crap in, crap out.
    Bad data in, bad data out.
    Hence, another example of why global warming might just be a sham….
    Interesting, don’t you think?