Climate Experts are blaming their tools for lack of warming

Facing an accelerating implosion of faith in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) theory due in part to satellite data showing more than 18 years of no warming — the great “pause” or “hiatus,” as some put it — one of the satellite data sets has now been adjusted to show a slight increase in temperatures over the last two decades. Global-warming theorists on the government dole celebrated the news, speculating that it might herald the end of skepticism over their controversial theory and even what particularly rabid warmists refer to as “climate denial.” However, experts and scientists warned climate alarmists to cool it — especially because the “adjusted” data is now significantly different than other, unmanipulated temperature data sets. There appear to be big problems with the adjustments, too, experts in satellite temperature data said.

The adjusted data set in question comes from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), satellites put into orbit by NASA but now overseen by chief RSS climate scientist Carl Mears in Santa Rosa, California. The new numbers, which were recently adjusted, purport to show about 0.125 degrees Celsius of warming every 10 years. That is radically more than the 0.078 Celsius per decade — a statistically insignificant figure — that the RSS data set showed before being “adjusted.” The new numbers from RSS also show radically higher temperature increases than other satellite data, such as the numbers from the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s data set (UAH). Examining the alleged warming over the tropics, for example, the new adjusted RSS data shows a rate of warming almost five times larger than UAH data, analysts said.

Scientists at UAH, including Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior climate scientist at NASA, compared the new RSS results with the data collected by UAH satellites. In comments on his own website and at climate-focused outlets, Spencer said there had been “spurious warming” added into the new RSS data — a problem that UAH data does not have. He blamed the spurious warming in the adjusted RSS data set on the RSS scientists failing to correct for discrepancies between more accurate temperature data-gathering instruments and data gathered by older, poorly calibrated instruments that have drifted from their original orbit. “I suspect Carl Mears [with RSS] grew tired of global warming ‘denialists’ using the RSS satellite data to demonstrate an 18-year ‘pause,’” Spencer was quoted as saying by the Daily Caller. “So, now that problem is solved.”

So let’s take stock. 

  1. Climate scientists made models predicting what the climate would do based on historical data
  2. Historical data that was recorded… historically, and wasn’t necessarily as accurate as what we do today
  3. Using the models, and the historical data, they made wild predictions
  4. None of these have come true.  None of them.  Not even close.
  5. “Modern” recording of temperature using satellites has been recording no effective change in global temperatures for the last 18 years
  6. So now, we are going to trust the data read from thermometers by people 50 years ago, but not using NASA designed and launched tech… because?
  7. Because that satellite is old.  It’s not reliable.  It can’t be trusted. (like the guy recording the temperature in a log book every day 50 years ago never faked it either)
  8. Solution?  CHANGE THE DATA.  Propose a better satellite gets sent that is capable of recording the data people want to see, instead of what they are getting

As Watts pointed out, one Karl, the chief of the National Climatic Data Center, is already being investigated by Congress for manipulating data to show bogus warming and hide the “pause” in temperature increases. His manipulation was so extreme that even top climate alarmists had to call foul. Perhaps it is time for Congress to expand its probe into the manipulation of data — especially because U.S. taxpayers are being asked to fork over billions of dollars and suffer a reduced standard of living under the guise of dealing with AGW. For now, though, experts say the RSS data should also be treated as suspect until further notice.

The whole sector is tainted.

And yet we still have our government and councils planning for one meter sea level rises on the back of all this fraud.

How about we take a stance where we pretend there is going to be negligible change, and once we’re finally starting to see real-world evidence, such as the mean high tides at Auckland Harbour getting progressively higher, then we still have at least half a century to respond to the “crisis”.


The New American


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Quinton Hogg

    Just had a look at the Auckland Tide gauge.
    There is a suggestion that averaged out over the past 100 years the average mean sea level has risen 16 centimetres since 1899. the trend is a 1.4 mm rise a year.

    • Keep in mind we’re moving close and farther away from the sun depending on our various elliptical orbits of planets, resulting in those planets being closer or farther away. Just the moon makes a 4.5m difference twice a day. The sun is 98% of all the matter in our solar system as well. I notice very few climate scientist look off-planet for data.

      Yes if you look into the “climate” data NASA has recorded for, say, Mars, you see similar “warming” there. Hmmm, no humans. Can’t be all those rovers warming the atmosphere can it?

  • Orca

    I would slightly re-arrange the title of the article, to: “Climate Tools are blaming their Experts for Lack of Warming”.

  • R&BAvenger

    I am not a denier. I do believe that the planet has been warming, just not in any catastrophic way and there is presently no evidence that convinces me that we need to panic, as the people pushing the end of the world, melting ice caps and flooding etc would have us believe.
    We do need to consider that things will be different in 100 years time and put in place sensible strategies to account for those variations, based on hard data, not unreliable computer models and ‘adjusted’ historical records.
    Finding alternatives to carbon/oil based energy is good, but those alternatives need to be reliable and cheap. They also should not rely on subsidies to prop them up. If they stack up, then private investment will come

    • meltingpot

      I also have no doubt that over time the earths climate will change, with or without mans help.

    • So we lift the limit to where structures are built to be 20cm ASL where the current limit is. Based on current trends, that will see the problem taken care of for 100 years, way in excess of the structures’ life spans.

      Or, we build them where they are now assuming a rise. Like this.

  • shykiwibloke

    To me it looks like this lot are arguing over some minor obscure points and missing the big picture. If you can’t even agree on how to read a thermometer – what business do you have predicting next week let alone next century? They really do seem to be so out of touch with the scientific method – if the facts don’t fit the theory – ditch the theory, not the facts. If the facts don’t agree – there in lies further foundation level research.

    • Dan

      It really is elementary science. Remember ‘Scientific Method?”
      Hypothesis> Aim> Method > Results > Conclusion

      The Conclusion MUST ALWAYS support the conclusion and also MUST NEVER add more data to the results, or the whole experiement does not scrub up to any form of peer review, full stop.

      Instead, what we witness today is
      Hypothesis > Conclusion > Aim > Results > Method. Or any other illegitimate abuse of sound scientific practice.

      These boffins would fail Year 9 science in the first term.

      • shykiwibloke

        Yep – the inverted method where you start with the conclusion was quite popular during the inquisition, and the witch hunts. Which truly puts climate science in the fanatical religion category methinks.

  • Dan

    Rather than sending up a new satellite, why not just tweak the javascript function that calculates the values. Isn’t that the norm these days?

    if (satellite_data < alarmist_value) || (satellite_data_today <= satellite_data_last_decade {
    media_release_data = eval ($alarmist_value)

    There, solved!

  • What amazes me is this attitude:
    Model predicts XYZ will happen. cue much alarums and excursions.
    Few years down the line data shows Model is incorrect, things are nowhere near as dire as the Model predicted.
    AGW alarmists look at their Model and say:
    a) let’s “correct” the data
    b) run the “corrected” data through an “improved” model and get even more scary results than the first model. cue much alarums and excursions.

    If the model is consistently wrong, then the model needs to be corrected or discarded rather than trying to change the data.

    Note: I believe climate change happens….it’s a natural process….I just think that the human impact on it is significantly less than what the AGW alarmists think it is, what’s more we’re still within an interglacial warming period in the current Ice Age. If that Ice Age ends, it’s going to get a whole lot hotter than their models….

    • I truly believe that in 1000 years they’ll look back at us as living in the scientific dark ages. “They made themselves computers, put data into it and then went into a flat spin about the output believing it to be correct”.

  • Diehard

    Total world wide fraud on a grand scale with the UN leading the charge. And we are somehow proud when a kiwi runs for the top job of this most corrupt organisation. She is a believer so nothing will change.