Tag: climategate

The routine lowering of past climate data to make today’s temperatures seem hotter.

9:22 pm

More climate fraud: The routine lowering of past climate data to make today’s temperatures seem hotter.

Almost all past temperatures have been adjusted downward, compared with the temperatures that were actually recorded at the time. During the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, when many record high temperatures were recorded, the readings have been adjusted downward by, generally speaking, one to one and a half degrees. These adjustments stop abruptly in the late 1990s. The effect of the adjustments is to make the past look cooler in relation to the present.

This kind of manipulation of data, changing the historical record after the fact, is done ALL THE TIME by the climate alarmists who crank out all of the data that are reported on in the newspapers. And the adjustments are always the same: they make the past cooler, so that the present will look warmer, in order to support their power-grabbing climate hysteria agenda. Whenever you hear on the radio that a temperature reading is the “warmest ever” in a particular place, you can reasonably assume that the “warmest ever” title was conferred by falsely reporting temperature readings from past decades.

And as Hinderaker properly concludes, “This is, in my view, the biggest scandal in the history of science. I can’t think of any competitor that could even come close.”

1 comment

The high peak in tornado in 2011, the most in fifty years, was quickly attributed to global warming. Eric Berger asks: How does this explain this year’s low number, the fewest in fifty years?

10:27 am

The uncertainty of science: The high peak in tornado in 2011, the most in fifty years, was quickly attributed to global warming. Eric Berger asks: How does this explain this year’s low number, the fewest in fifty years?

If you click on the first link, you will see that the global warming scientists quoted, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, were all involved in the climategate emails, where they came off very badly. Moreover, there have been significant questions about the work of Michael Mann himself. I also wonder if these guys will have anything to say about the dearth of tornadoes today.

2 comments

More fraud in climate science

3:17 pm

Fraudalent data

Steve McIntyre, the man who had demonstrated that Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was a fraud, has now demonstrated that the work of a group of climate scientists attempting to resurrect it is even more fraudulent. It seems that in order to recreate the illusion of warming in the past four hundred years, the scientists, led by geologist Shaun Marcott, changed the dates on a series of ocean cores in order to get the results they wanted.

McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years.

Most significantly, the scientists made no explanation for changing these dates. It is as if they wanted to hide this decline, y’know?

The chart on the right, by McIntyre, illustrates the fraud. The black line shows the temperature numbers of the ocean cores used by Marcott. The red line shows the temperature numbers, as originally published in the scientific literature, for these ocean cores.

The discrepancy here is so egregious that it screams at you. More important, as John Hinderaker says,
» Read more

28 comments

The founder of the green movement sees the light.

8:57 am

The founder of the green movement sees the light.

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. … Although well-intentioned it is an erosion of our freedom and draws near to what I see as fascism.

13 comments

Not only have the models failed to predict temperature, they also have failed to predict the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

3:05 pm

Another IPCC failure, revealed in the leaked report: Not only have the models failed to predict global temperature, they also have failed to predict the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

The graph at the link is just like the temperature graph I posted on Monday. It compares actual observations with the predictions of the computer models, which all called for a hefty rise in atmospheric methane. All the models got it wrong.

0 comments

A preliminary copy of the next IPCC report has been leaked.

10:27 am

IPCC figure

A preliminary copy of the next IPCC report has been leaked.

In the coming days there will be much discussion of this document — such as how it appears the IPCC has finally acknowledged the importance of the Sun’s variability to climate change — but for now, I post on the right what is probably its most important admission. This graph from the leaked report shows the rise in global temperatures as predicted by all the different climate models used by the IPCC, compared to actual observed temperatures. As you can see, since the late 1990s there has been no significant increase in global temperature. Moreover, the observed data now sits outside the predicted margin of error for all the models, making every single one of these models completely wrong.

But don’t worry, these facts aren’t important. In fact, any facts that contradict the religion of global warming must be ignored. It is far more important to shut down all industry and live like cavemen, just because we have faith in our belief in global warming.

29 comments

Climate experts are now calling for an end to the regularly scheduled mega-climate summits.

11:31 am

Good news: Climate experts are now calling for an end to the regularly scheduled mega-climate summits.

That these summits haven’t accomplished anything but allow climate bureaucrats to burn tons of airplane fossil fuel to gather in some of the world’s nicest warm weather cities during the winter — thereby making them all look like hypocrites — is not the reason these experts want to cancel the summits. They want to cancel the summits because the summits aren’t getting them the results they want: strict regulation on the lives of everyone else.

Nowhere does the article address the simple fact that in the past three years, since the release of the climategate emails, the creditability of the entire climate change field has gone to zero. The public doesn’t buy their sales pitch anymore, and thus neither do politicians, which is why no one is willing to make a deal at these summits. No one believes anything these climate experts are saying, especially since they have refused to clean up the corruption within their field.

5 comments

This is the first time since 1988 that climate hasn’t been mentioned in the presidential debate cycle

12:46 pm

Good news: “This is the first time since 1988 that climate hasn’t been mentioned in the presidential debate cycle.”

When you try to sell government policy based on crisis, and that crisis doesn’t take place as predicted, and in fact is shown to be based on fraud and dishonesty, the sales job will eventually fail. Thus, better to forget the whole thing and make believe it never happened.

0 comments

Polar bear fraud

2:00 pm

The scientist famous for identifying drowning polar bears in the Arctic has been reprimanded for leaking emails and following “inappropriate” procurement procedures at his job at the Department of Interior.

The investigation also criticized the scientist, Charles Monnett, for fudging his data in reporting the death of the polar bears, a report that the global warming movement used extensively to falsely prove that global warming was causing the destruction of the polar bear population.

The Nature story above tries to make light of Monnett’s misconduct, especially in connection with his polar bear report as well as his work in awarding contracts. The report itself [pdf] is far more harsh.

In connection with Monnett’s contract work, it appears he actually helped one contractor write his proposal, then sat on the board that awarded the contract to that contractor.
» Read more

1 comment

James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

3:21 pm

James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

Hat tip to reader jwing who alerted me to this story. As I commented to him, this “also is old news, to my mind, even though this is a new discovery of corruption. This kind of fraud has now been on-going for the past decade, with no signs of any effort to fix it. Worse, the climate science field even denies that it has a problem. Thus, I don’t trust anything they tell me. I check everything twice, and then have doubts besides. Which is why I remain entirely skeptical of any claims these climate scientists make.”

And in this case, the climate scientist in question is James Hansen.

9 comments

A journalist takes objective look at global warming

10:13 am

For the past week there has been a new spat of articles written about human caused global warming, instigated by an op-ed (subscription required) written by scientist Richard Muller in the New York Times, where he wrote:

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream press has jumped on this op-ed and the public release of new data by Muller’s team as further proof that the debate over global warming is settled and we should all bow to our governmental overlords and agree to any regulations they propose to save the planet.

Not so fast.
» Read more

3 comments

most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable.

7:28 pm

“Most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable.”

The article describes a new paper which analyzed the reliability of the weather stations in the U.S. and found that NOAA not only favored the data from the more untrustworthy stations — which also happened to have a warming bias — they then adjusted the overall data upward even more.

In other words, any temperature data from the last few decades cannot be trusted.

The full details can be found at Watts Up With That, but I haven’t given that as the main link because the page takes so long to load due to the many comments. You can also go here for additional information.

1 comment

British police have closed their investigation trying to find out who leaked the climategate emails.

9:47 am

British police have closed their investigation trying to find out who leaked the climategate emails.

“We are naturally disappointed that those responsible for this crime have not been caught and brought to justice,” said Edward Acton, [University of East Anglia]’s vice chancellor, in a statement. “The misinformation and conspiracy theories circulating following the publication of the stolen emails – including the theory that the hacker was a disgruntled UEA employee — did real harm to public perceptions about the dangers of climate change.”

Phil Jones, research director of CRU … said he hoped the end of the case would “draw a line under the stressful events of the last two and half years”.

How can the release of these emails be “misinformation” when both UEA and Phil Jones have admitted the emails are actually their emails? They can’t. Nothing was faked, and the content of those emails was chilling, as they showed a scientist (Phil Jones) willing to fake data, delete evidence, and destroy the careers of his critics. That East Anglia did not investigate and then fire Phil Jones after reading these emails tells us that East Anglia has no interest in the honest pursuit of science.

2 comments

A review by the IPCC of its earlier reports has admitted to serious problems and fundamental biases.

9:51 am

A review by the IPCC of its earlier reports has admitted that the manner in which the reports were produced had serious problems and fundamental biases.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25). [emphasis mine]

The sad part is that almost none of these problems have been addressed by the IPCC in producing its next report, due out sometime in 2013 or 2014.

3 comments
1 2 3 4 … 9