Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse for the cult of the carbon scare.
Now we need to ask if the world has even warmed? I’ve always said, “global warming is real”, but the recent exposés of shocking corruption in science have made me start to wonder whether even that is true.
Today a study by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, was announced by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
From their media release:
An extensive survey of the literature and data regarding ground and sea surface temperature records uncovers deception through data manipulation, reports the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
Authors veteran meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.
That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.
The researchers found –
- All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
- All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
- Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
- There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
- Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper station sitting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate warming.
- Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
- Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
- In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
- Satellite temperature monitoring has already taken the place of terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record.
- The terrestrial global-temperature databases on which so many important policy decisions based are entirely inadequate and unfit for further use.
- NOAA, not CRU, was the driving force behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming” – a warming that has been exaggerated in level and rate.
Graph GHCN temperature stations 1701-2008
Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “The entire case for alarm about ‘global warming’ is of course predicated on the assumption that ‘global warming’ has actually occurred. D’Aleo and Watts sampling of horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data from all parts of the world raises very serious questions not just about how much ‘global warming’ occurred in the last century but also about whether there was any significant warming at all.
“The serious question now arises: do these transparent data manipulations by self-interested government agents add to cascading revelations of worldwide scientific and financial fraud?
This paper shows the question to be far more than merely academic or rhetorical. Unless climatology cleans up its act, it will discredit not only itself but science as a whole. Certainly there is now no scientific basis for any of the policies recommended by the UN’s climate panel or Western governments, now being pursued at catastrophic cost to national economies and personal liberties of a once sovereign citizenry.”
Read the Full Paper Here (6Mb)
It’s packed with must see graphs, photos, and cutting analysis. I highly recommend it. — Jo
Hi Jo:
I am not sure if you picked up the following link from WUWT the other day, but AJStrata makes compelling points about surface temperature readings, which may or may not have been covered by the SPPI publication:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12246
In a nutshell, AJStrata concludes that temperatures are too variable over time and distance (geographically) to draw any conclusions from even the manipulated GISS, CRU, NCDC records.
The variability in readings and enormous spatial separation of the temperature stations render erros far too high to indicate any significant trends, let alone a miniscule increase over the last 40-50 years as claimed in IPCC documents.
This is without even worrying about UHI, station ommissions and degredation.
Fellow Perthite,
Bulldust
PS> I just notice you have a Perth skeptics group… where do I sign up? There are others at work (and elsewhere) that are interested.
PPS> Yes, I am that infamous Bulldust that coined “Climategate” 😀
10
I recall stressing a long time ago that the temperature trends, measured in fractions of a degree Celsius, were smaller than the instrumental error of the thermometers used to measure the temperatures, and hence autocorrelated noise in which any trend could be derived.
The practice of reporting climate statistics as “anomalies” is specious, especially when those anomalies are within instrument error.
Chartmanship par excellence.
10
D’Aleo also appeared (along with E Michael Smith) in a segment of the KUSI special report by Jonathon Coleman, here:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
D’Aleo is at Icecap:
http://icecap.us/
Smith is at Musings from the Chiefio:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
10
This seems rather timely from the TimesOnline.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
10
There is a good reason for some meteorological sites being at airports – modern aircraft need accurate wind strength, wind direction, and temperature information for safety at take off and landing.
These sites are often close to the buildings that hold the ground-based navigation radio and radar equipment, but since that set-up is static, any heat-island effect is known locally, and can be accounted for.
But whereas the folks who service the radio and radar equipment, must do highly accurate calibration tests and adjustments on a regular basis, there appears to be no equivalent requirement for the meteorological equipment to be calibrated and adjusted in the same way.
If anybody can give me a reference to calibration and adjustment records, I would be interested in looking at them.
10
as a ‘newby’ to this topic, but a die hard sceptic of Matrix proportions, I’m still amazed when the West Australian newspaper can run an article in Saturdays paper entitled ‘Past Decade “Warmest Ever”‘, quoting James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute.
Thankfully they can admit that according to their data total warming over the last 120 years is ‘about’ 0.8degC. This helps a layman like myself understand that accuracy of thermometers and ‘noise’ arguments.
As a 44 year old who hasn’t been brainwashed by ‘green’ cartoons from birth, I immediately define ‘about’ 0.8deg as ‘about’ zero deg, so it appears the uneducated (no PhD in climatology) have some fudge factors of our own! Whilst not empirical it as at least an encouraging thought. Interesting how we can delight in Machiavellian pragmatism when we’re right!
10
Good to see Deltoid cutting folks off at the pass:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php
with this containing more info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=99&&n=123
10
@ Bulldust #1
I’ve also been reading the Strata article, and if he’s correct the implications for the historic climate data are even worse than for the 6000 (or was it 1500) temperature data sets.
Do not assume the historic climate data to be based on a large number of treering, icecore or other proxy sets.
10
Jo, i e-mailed lord monckton yesterday to request an image for his wikipedia page. He mailed me back and said to ask you for the one you used here the other day. Would you be so kind as to mail me so we can get the image into his bio as the current one is terrible. jigalypuff at gmaildotcom. Thanks.
10
If you start from the simple fact that the sun is dying then the heat it produces over time will decline. The question is whether the heat is greatest at the birth of the sun or whether it peaks and then falls. The next question is at what point are we in that time frame. The decline in the heat output will not be a straight line so variations will affect earth but again over what periods. It is inevitable that on the longest time scale earth is cooling and will continue to do so simply because the sun is dying.
10
MattB,
True believers jumping up and down and pretending that garbage data is OK is not really going to cut through anything.
In an ethical belief system, when proof of bad actions by believers is brought forward, actions are taken to assure that high levels of ethics and honesty are imposed and practiced.
In AGW land, on the other hand, the true believers raly around, no matter how obvious the bad data, self dealing or corrupt practices.
10
SMH’s Ben Cubby demonstrates why MSM is on the way out in his interview with Lord Monckton.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climategate-gives-lord-of-the-sceptics-plenty-of-ammunition-20100127-mywc.html?autostart=1
10
Hunter – from my side of the fence those same comments could be levelled at the vast majority of sceptics. Embrace any old garbage that matches their world view.
10
Rats flee sinking ship
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/26/terence-corcoran-heat-wave-closes-in-on-the-ipcc.aspx
Andrew Weaver one of Canadia’s leading climatologists is bailing?
10
MattB,
Skeptics are in the same position, when confronted by AGW true believers, as paleontologists being confronted by creationists:
We have the fossils.
We have the data, the pictures, the e-mails, the track records of unilateral changes to the historical data base, the documented conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc.
Your side has models, political power, and a documented willingness to lie.
20
I looked at Ben Cubby interviewing Lrd Monkton. It seems Ben Cubby from the SMH is greenwashed to the core?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climategate-gives-lord-of-the-sceptics-plenty-of-ammunition-20100127-mywc.html?autostart=1
He seems to infer a noble Peace prize is the standard of authenticity. Cubby is stupid. Resident Obama won one by reason of being voted in office. He had done nothing. The Noble Prize is actually an ink stain on one’s C.V.
The IPCC gaining a prize confirms it’s value is near nothing except for the egos involved.
10
@ hunter: January 28th, 2010 at 1:52 am You do realize when you say stuff like AGW true believers it becomes religion not science.
That and the fact we have seen the data, heard it scream on the rack, then saw the end result matched the theory. Find a new god, this one is has been found to be false and is to be cast aside.
20
Mark Nutley,
Perhaps you can make yourself clearer?
If I describe people who believe in AGW no matter how counterfactual as ‘true believers’, who is being religious?
Which god is to be tossed aside/
I like your writing style, I am just not following it as well I would like.
10
Mark Nutley –
Your post is ambiguous. It fails to place you on one side or the other. And the pitiful part of this is that there are two sides. But then that’s been the case for every scientific argument for the last 5,000 years.
Eight years ago I labelled AGW as religion. For eight years it has proved to be so. If the god is now to be cast aside then it is long overdue.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Lee, Joanne Nova, Maurizio Morabito, Nissemus, Nissemus and others. Nissemus said: @JamesDelingpole You need to see this – NEW REPORT Horrifing data manipulation http://ow.ly/10QQK (via @JoanneNova) […]
10
As a former NOAA employee I’m sad to say, none of this suprises me.
NOAA has some outstanding scientist, outstanding techs.
NOAA also has one of the worst bureaucratic swamps in American Government.
Keep fighting good people; it is worth it.
10
But, despite all of the data tampering, some raw data still exists. The biggest problem is how to authenticate that it hasn’t been tampered with.
The easiest data to authenticate is the weather satellite data, mostly because the raw data is very difficult to tamper with. The GISS project that has tried to do this (ISCCP), uses sets of calibration data to convert raw pixel data into radiation energies and ultimately temperatures. There are only a handful of different calibration data sets which change as old satellites retire and new ones are added. Most of the errors in the processed data are due to errors in this calibration data, which coincidentally, always seems to push the temperature results in the direction of AGW.
We have almost 100%, redundant, surface coverage, with spatial resolution down to 10km and continuous temporal resolution. The data is in a form of sequences of pixel images from many visible and IR channels, and would be far more difficult to corrupt. We have continuous, full coverage data going back to about 1983 and more sporadic data before that. The data has the potential for extreme accuracy, relative to the predicted effects of the substantial CO2 increase that has occurred even since 1983. It almost seems silly to be using sparse surface temperature measurements as a proxy when this far more accurate data is already available. While the satellite data doesn’t go back as far, it’s certainly suitable for confirming recent trends extracted from proxies and the satellite data clearly doesn’t support recent hockey stick trends.
It would seem to me that basis for using anomaly analysis as a tool for predicting trends from sparse data (Hansen, Lebedeff 1987) has been proved incorrect by the data. My biggest problem with anomaly analysis has been that anomalous trends are indistinguishable from sloppy methods.
George
10
I’m not a statistician but maybe some one who is can decipher the data at this site.
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
It concerns the adjusted temp record for Australia by Torok, S. and Nicholls, N., 1996 – It documents all the temperature records of the stations throughout Australia and notes all the adjustments made and why.
Abstract
A high-quality historical surface air temperature data
set, for mean annual temperatures, has been prepared for
Australia by adjusting data for inhomogeneities caused by
station relocations, changes in exposure and other
discontinuities. An objective procedure was developed for
determining the necessary adjustments. Station history
documentation was also used for this purpose. Time-series
of annual mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures have
been produced for 224 stations. Trends in annual mean
maximum, minimum, the mean of the maximum and minimum,
and the range between maximum and minimum, have been
calculated at each site. The data set provides adequate
spatial coverage of Australia back to 1910 for the
production of all-Australia average temperatures. Maximum
and minimum temperatures have increased since about 1950,
with minimum temperatures increasing faster than the
maximum temperatures.
Data
Monthly temperature data are available for 1418 stations
around the country with almost 100,000 station-years of
combined maximum and minimum temperature data. However,
the number of stations is much smaller if only stations
currently operating and with at least 80years of data are
considered. To increase the number of long term stations
available, previously unused data were digitised and a
number of stations were combined to create composite
records (the date of combination was treated as a
discontinuity and subsequently adjusted along with other
problems identified in the comparison process). This
resulted in a data set of 224 stations (“candidate
stations”) being established for further investigation.
The stations are listed in Table 1.
10
a .pdf of torok’s work is here
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
10
work by collins 99 is here
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Collins1999.pdf
Work by Della Marta and Collins 2004 is here.
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
10
Although 111 pages, it is a relatively quick read as there are plenty of graphs to spice it up. And an excellent one stop source of information on the problems of the recording stations around the globe.
10
[…] damning thing? From their press release: The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global […]
10
How easy is it to down-grade the earlier data and pronounce a warming trend? What would the average person know but for a few smart folk graphing the numbers? I can’t tell if it is 22º or 24º this a.m. and most people believe the diatribe served up on the telly. From my experience simply recording and producing meaningful stats has a few pitfalls if you are after accuracy over decades. There are all sorts of complications which can drown out a trend.
On the other hand plants are surprizingly subtle barometers of change. I spend around 10 hours a day outside in the Blue Mtns of Sydney and have noticed a definite increase in cloudiness and rain (and therefore lost income). Since early 2007 I’ve had less sunburn with a decrease in temperatures in this tiny region of the Earth. Horticulturalists tell me the same. Agapanthus flowers in my garden which used to flower during the last week of Nov only came into full bloom in the first week of Jan. It’s completely ascientific yet indicative of a trend.
Max and Min thermometer readings also fail to accurately describe the quantity of heat in the system. eg. we had very few frost events last winter yet I cut and burned nearly double the firewood because there were many days which failed to warm up. The median temperature was lower but this is not reflected in the local measuring stations. Without any underhand dealing, cloud tends to increase over-night minima and decrease day-time maxima. Conversely, during the 90s we had less rainfall, with many frosts followed by razor sharp sunny winter days which became quite warm. The range was high but the average was similar ( tho slightly higher than 2009).
Lastly, skeptics need to be careful to remain neutral with data or we will become as prejudiced and irrelevant as the IPCC Climate Inquisition.
10
Tony @ 10
In fact, the centre of the sun heats up as it fuses hydrogen to helium. Seems contradictory but hydrostatic equilibrium causes the core to contract. Higher pressure results in higher temperature. Outer layers expand dramatically as the last of the hydrogen fuses.
Eventually, the core will reach the temperature necessary for helium to start fusing to beryllium, carbon etc. i.e. 100m K. Mercury and Venus almost certainly absorbed and destroyed. Even if Earth is not absorbed, it will be a charred cinder.
Yes, the surface temperature will drop from 5800K to around 3000K but the sheer proximity of the sun will be more than enough to counteract any “global cooling”.
10
Let me propose a small exercise in divining temperatures:
Fire up: “http://weather.unisys.com/surface/index.html”
Poke around and find what a surface plot really shows (lower on the page), then go to the maps by clicking on the small map. Another click -may- expand it again to make it a bit easier to see. You will then have access to 12 maps of surface plots — one for each of the past 12 hours.
See if you, think that with the temperature data presented, you can determine the temperature of stations up to 1000 km away. To give you some perspective, San Francisco on the west coast is about 4200 km from New York city.
And, by the way, just pretend that you have no fronts, pressures, winds or such for hints — just temperatures.
10
Can any of the so-called ‘sceptics’here point out the flaws in Louis Hissink’s “temperature trends, measured in fractions of a degree Celsius, were smaller than the instrumental error of the thermometers used to measure the temperatures, and hence autocorrelated noise in which any trend could be derived” comment?
Just curious. 😉
10
Agendaism and Fraud; the Sordid Tale of Climate ‘Science’
January 13, 2010.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Founder of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” IBID
”[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” IBID
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18930
10
With all the unprecedented fabricated record heat waves, I would rather live in 2000’s than in the 1930’s, anyone who doesn’t agree needs to study history.
10
Albert, do you understand the difference between global climate and local weather?
10
Dan, RE 31,
If errors are random with a distribution of values around the actual mean, then you can reduce the effective error by averaging measurements. So, theoretically, you can discern trends less than the instrumentation error, given enough measurements and a stochastic distribution of errors. Neither of these conditions are satisfied by the subset of homogenized data used for temperature reconstructions.
The real problem is that anomaly analysis is incapable of distinguishing between an anomalous trend and other kinds of anomalies, especially when averaged data is used. The anomalous trend seen in all of the hockey stick graphs is the result of a variety of systematic methodology changes and adjustments, each of which had a side effect, intended or otherwise, of reporting higher absolute average temperatures.
There are many detailed examples of this in the paper referenced in this article. Did you read it?
George
10
Dan Gleibitz:
Yes to your question, I studied Meteorology which included global climate 40 years ago. Many people believe the Northern Hemisphere chill is further indication of more cooling and a sign of perhaps a cooler winter for Australia, it is not, it is just a local weather event that’s happened before but not so fast and widespread.
I tended to believe the pioneer scientists who measured Global warming, they were considered lunatics, the basic science seemed convincing, so I suppose I was also a lunatic.
When I watched the Al Gore film, I believed it was full of lies and I did not need to refer to any literature on the subject, for what I knew to be fact Gore’s version was only fear mongering.
10
what is wrong with these politicians?
SMH: Two Liberals could cross Senate floor on ETS vote PHILLIP COOREY
Sue Boyce, from Queensland, and Judith Troeth, from Victoria, crossed the floor to vote for the ETS in the Senate last year in defiance of their new leader, Tony Abbott.
They said yesterday they were reserving their right to do the same again…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/two-liberals-could-cross-senate-floor-on-ets-vote-20100127-myzh.html
10
Dan Gleibitz
I used the analogy from my own professional use of geochemistry in mineral exploration. It’s tantamount to pick trends in chemical data less than the detection limit for a particular element.
Trends in statistical noise are therefore specious.
10
O/T but Glaciergate Hits (1450 Queensland time);
Bing : 10,000,000
Google: 52,900
Not much in the way of consistency. Al may have to re-invent the Internet
10
The ABC’s World Today had a story from the BoM on Aus to get more extremely hot days but it forgot to mention that the BoM has conveniently wiped all temp records prior to 1910 when many records were set.
Bom’s excuse for wiping those records is that they were somehow inferior but those old farm verandah records would have shown trends and were possibly cooler than stevenson screens.
1910 also just happens to be a convenient cool period and helps to emphasize AGW.
10
Christopher Monckton mentioned this in his talk at Newcastle Town Hall today, as part of his truly excellent, and quite moving, presentation. He is a wonderful speaker. I would encourage people to attend the remaining talks where at all possible.
10
@Jim Owen: January 28th, 2010 at 4:59 am
Which side am i on? I am on the side of truth and the scientific method. I suspect that makes me a sceptic nowadays 🙂
@hunter: January 28th, 2010 at 4:18 am
Science is not about belief, this is something you need to learn.
10
spangled drongo:
I have real issues with the way the Aussie BoM data are presented in their press releases. I looked at their last climate press release as soon as it came out and a prime example of cherry picking jumped right out of the headline on rainfall.
To refresh your memory the Aussie BoM released the following climate statement for 2009:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
If you look at the rainfall headline it reads boldly:
Another drier than average year in the southeast mainland
Most people probably don’t even notice the “southeast mainland” at the end of the headline. Now let’s look at the graph under the headline showing annual Australian rainfall data. The decadal mean bars visually distort the graph by leading the eye away from the y-axis gridlines. They give a false (trending upwards from left to right) horizon if you will.
Do as I did and place a straight edge across the graph at the level of the 2009 rainfall (of 453mm). What you notice (if you block out the values above and then below the line) is that 2009 was clearly an above-average rainfall year for the country as a whole. Why then the need to headline the section saying “Another drier than average year….”?
Read the text regarding the rainfall data and much of the emphasis is on dust storms, dry spells, and rainfall deficiencies. Incidently, looking at the decadal averages for rainfall… any trend, such as it is, shows a long-term increase in average rainfall in Australia. Of course much of the increase is occuring in regions away from the main population centres, so I guess it doesn’t count :p
10
MattB,
You said
Sorry, but that’s not how science works. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. That someone exposes your data to be corrupt, erroneous, flawed or tainted should not make it open season on the messenger.
I, for one, would absolutely want to know if there were errors in any of my publications whether it be data, logic or theory. That would certainly be embarrassing but I would extend my sincere gratitude to the person who brought it to my attention.
If you cannot appreciate that then you may want to consider a refresher course in basic science. 🙂
20
Bulldust,
Haven’t Tassie and parts of Vic just had very good rain?
Just selected a random coastal site where I could get some old data and no UHI effect. Couldn’t bring up Cape Byron so I got Yamba and the highest temps were back in 1884.
10
Tide you are just confirming my point… there are examples all over the net of people using science and reasoning to debunk huge swathes of skeptical science when it comes to AGW, but every opportunity the same of rubbish is spouted. I absolutely agree that leading scientists benefit when their work is critiqued in the scientific community – it is how every advancement in science is made.
10
Mark Nutley, Hunter and Jim Owen,
Guys it looks to me like you are involved in what we in the military call “an intramural firefight.” At least you aren’t using bullets.
You’re on the same side and talking past each other.
10
JLK,
Thanks for pointing that out.
We are doing this for several reasons. One is time zones: I am in the US.
Another is that we are no coordinating ourselves. We do not have talking points.
MattB benefits from having his ideas fed to him by the AGW promo sites, and his deep faith in them.
10
hunter… that is funny given most post here are simply “hey look at Watts up” 🙂
10
Except that Watt’s Up is PROOF, not talking points. As is CO2Science, The IPPC and a score of other actual, Science-based sites.
20
[…] Joanne Nova has more. […]
10
Well, the hits just keep on coming and the AGW Team is on the ropes and getting ready to go down for the final count. @MattB You still drinking the green kool-aide? There isn’t one shred of empirical evidence to support the AGW theory. Every instance of the promulgation of raw data leads to more scandal. The CRU data is corrupt and altered to show a bias in favor of AGW. Since their conclusions are false, any other temperature data sets that agree with it are also false. It isn’t a coincidence that the GISS/NOAA/NCDC is in “substantial” agreement with the CRU data. The data was manipulated by members of the “hockey team” on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no reliable data set from which to calculate the “normal” temperature of the earth. Although they cannot go after Phil Jones for criminally impeding a FOI request because of a statue of limitation issue he did, nonetheless, commit a crime. The investigation is just beginning here in the U.S. and there will be indictments handed up by various grand juries.
What really amazes me is how the recent “new” stories about the scandal have been “uncovered” by the MSM, it has been old news for sometime now to the skeptics. As they get better ratings they will continue to “report” on the various scandals until they squeeze every advertising dollar from it. This is just getting started. When the general public becomes aware of the magnitude of the scandal and the true amount of taxpayer’s dollars squandered they are going to vote out the proponents of this scandal and it will be interesting to watch politicians distance themselves from the scandal and anyone linked to it.
10
The temp data pre 1910 hasn’t been lost – it all in the link I posted previously – could some one please download it and examine it – David Evans?? PLEASE!
10
wonder if The Age sees the irony:
Our turn to whinge on Australia-London fares
In London, Trade Minister Simon Crean has urged Britain to scrap its latest “green tax” rise on airfares, arguing it discriminates against people travelling to Australia…
“We’ve indicated to the Government that whilst this was originally said to be a duty for environmental purposes it’s now accepted that it’s just for revenue raising purposes,” Mr Crean said…
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/our-turn-to-whinge-on-australialondon-fares-20100127-my94.html
10
The AGW promoters are pushing back and saying that this study is so wrong, that it hides a *cooling* bias in the land record.
I intuitively find this implausible, but would like to encourage anyone with technical expertise at data management to review this and report.
TIA,
10
UK channel 4 interview on climategate.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+the+email+trail/3519452
10
with reference to my previous post
Here are some charts for you to ponder.
This is the current .csv file available from BoM regarding station 66062 – Sydney Observatory Hill.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=66062
It covers 1859 – 2009
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_current.png
Here’ is the Data for Sydney 66062 that I took from that site I linked to on Jo Nova’s site which was Torok’s original data back in 1999. and covers 1859 – 1993
source: ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png
BTW – here’s Darwin over the same period from the same site.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin.png
now is any statistician interested in this?
10
BTW – if you go up a directory you will find the rainfall over the same period.
10
Australia
WAIT TILL 2020 PLEASE
TO SEE IF GLOBAL WARMING DOES REALLY EXIST
I would like RUDD our EMPLOYEE to stop spending our money on Global warming as we are still developing our nation .we wouldn’t even see a significant difference for the money we are spending and by the way has any body taken into account that the manufacturing of these extra products mandated for our homes like insulation and solar panels ect (predominantly made in china) create pollution to manufacture and distribute and that most of the world will still burn coal even if we change
SIMPLY GIVE OUR ECONOMY A BREAK AND WAIT AND SEE IF GLOBAL WARMING DOES REALLY EXIST
10
Matthew @ 93
You raise a point that was the subject of my PhD (which I didn’t complete *cough* got distracted by the intarwebs) entitled “Australia’s Invisible Energy Trade.” In a nutshell, I was examining Australia’s energy trade both in direct forms such as fossil fuels and uranium and also the more subtle indirect forms embodied in other products.
For example, when we export a tonne of aluminium to China, we are also exporting the energy incorporated in making that aluminium (which is substantial). Does this mean the Chinese should account for that energy and the associated emissions? Probably not if they used it to make window frames that were re-exported to the USA. It is easy to see how complex such accounting becomes. I did not get into the in depth input-output analysis of the Aussie economy, but that would have been the next chapter of the work. I am happy to synthesise what I did write and post it here in lay terms if Jo is interested.
So if Rudd & co are successful in introducing an ETS the only thing it will achieve is to make our alumina/aluminium industry (continuing with the example) more costly than that in countries that don’t have a similar scheme in place. As a consequence such industries which are subject to world prices for their output will simply move offshore over time to more tax-friendly regimes. This is referred to as “carbon leakage.”
You may also hear it reported from time to time that Australia is an extremely carbon-intensive economy (it is not the most intensive as often reported, but right up there). We export most of that energy as energy products and products embodying energy (as described above). When that is taken out of the equation I am sure you will find that Australia’s actual carbon footprint is not as hideous as it is portrayed to be.
In any case, the fact that we have a carbon-intensive economy should make it obvious that we have the most to lose from introducing a carbon tax. Do you think the French, who generate 70% or more of their electricity from nuclear care about carbon taxes? Of course not… they have far less to lose.
I could go on, but I think you have the flavour of it now 🙂
10
Louis Hissink writes: “I used the analogy from my own professional use of geochemistry in mineral exploration. It’s tantamount to pick trends in chemical data less than the detection limit for a particular element.
Trends in statistical noise are therefore specious.”
I’ll assume you’re serious.
Your dismissal would be reasonable if it were based on the difference between two observations being exceeded by the expected error bounds (noise) of the second measurement. This dismissal is not reasonable once repeated observations have validated the difference, assuming the errors are normally distributed (or most often even if they’re not).
Your point is incorrect.
10
I have recently been bemused/amused by two articles published in the rural press (I’m a woolgrower) Article number one cited 2009 as the warmest year of the warmest decade in history.
Article number two noted that the trend towards colder Northern Hemisphere winters, was driving up demand for wool.
20
Binny: Global Climate vs Local Weather. You might want to google that.
10
Yeah… I think I have a handle on climate versus local weather based on media reports. Hemisphere wide record cold periods is whether. Citywide heatwaves is climate.
20
Almost as ignorant as your first post. 😉
11
Whether = male sheep, weather = warm and sunny presently with a chance of thunderstorms later this evening.
10
Actually I was thinking of wether?
10
please ignore my previous posts regarding the climate record – I blew it !
10
Wow! Three posts regarding a typo. I guess that confirms Jo’s December 18 post on climate bullies
20
I’ve just finished reading the paper and I think it’s pretty devastating.
It is surely time for a complete audit on the IPCC and organisations that have been caught manipulating the data.
10
Did someone say “audit the IPCC”? Not just yet, it would appear – the latest from Mons. Delingpole
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024548/climategate-is-the-british-government-conspiring-not-to-prosecute/
10
And one of them where he muffs it himself.
*SIGH*
10
The latest from New Zealand – NIWA and their mysterious data adjustment methodology;
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/01/niwa-unable-to-justify-official-temperature-record/
10
Tel writes: “one of them where he muffs it himself”.
Precisely the point. Binny should stick to farming, and I’ll stick to science. 😉
10
[…] Surface Temperature Records – Deliberate Tampering By wormthatturned Examples of Deliberate Tampering […]
10
Your idea is really a breath of fresh air when compared to the usual rubbish I read on solar energy. There’s a lot of frauds out there. Thank you for helping me out.
10
[…] For details on just how sinister the vanishing of data records is, see my previous post on Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo’s extraordinary summary of Policy Driven Deception. […]
10
Hi I was looking for viable knowledge on inks for wide format printers. Your blog was listed on Yahoo in this category, you have an interesting site.
10
[…] most of GISS’s thermometers located in Canada used to measure world global temperatures have had their data tampered with giving the impression that the world is warming more than […]
10