Steve McIntyre

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ?global warming? when the temperature records providing the ?evidence? for that warming cannot be trusted?

It?s a big question ? and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I?m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot ? even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world?s leading global warming experts ? say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State ? and they studied your records for a moment and said: ?This isn?t right.? What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You?d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Looks like ocean acidification was made up too

The supporters of global warming theory always come up with new doomsday scenarios, usually when the last one failed.

The latest one that is pushed hard is ocean acidification as a result of global warming…except it looks like it is as fraudulent and Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

James Delingpole explains:

Ocean acidification is said to be caused when excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the sea, reducing its pH levels to make it more acidic.

But, as Watts Up With That reports new evidence unearthed by an inquisitive graduate student suggests that ?ocean acidification? may be a scientific fraud to rank with the great ?man-made-global warming? scare.

At the centre of the scandal is NOAA, the US federal scientific agency which measures and researches changes in the oceans and atmosphere, and which maintains one of the temperature datasets used to measure ?global warming.?

One of NOAA?s departments ? the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) ? also happens to be one of the mainstays of the alarmist narrative about ?ocean acidification.?

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL?s senior oceanographers ? Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine ? is often cited in support of ?ocean acidification? theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA?s website. ?It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH. ? Read more »

Guest Post – Kevin Hearle – NZ?s Kyoto commitment (a farce) and here is why.

iraqi

The New Zealand Kyoto commitment as measured by the Government fell to Zero in April of 2013 the actual commitment in Millions of Units was 29.1M Units but because the value of these Units is linked to the price in Euros of a CER on the European Exchange and that fell to ?0.01 effectively zero our units are deemed to be worth less than a CER (though why a unit of carbon is worth less in NZ than it is in Europe is beyond me) this made our 29.1 million credit worth nothing.

Let?s consider that we can actually measure our commitment with any certainty for the moment.

The price of carbon has fallen from around ? 12.00 in 2008 to effectively zero ?0.01 in April 2013. This fall is due to the manipulation of the market by the EU in allowing the market to be flooded with CER?s? and now by the complete loss of credibility of the UN IPCC and the Catastrophic Anthropogenic? Global Warming ?scenario painted by that organisation. ?The IPCC?s 5th Assessment report has been bagged by scientists and the press alike.? James Delingpole?s article in the Telegraph? headlined ?The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy? sums it up.

Delingpole quotes? IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen as saying ?the IPCC has ?“sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence.” Nigel Lawson has called it “not science but mumbo jumbo”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC’s panel as “evasive and inaccurate” in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that it is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated ? or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story ? that almost all the scary scenarios we’ve been warned about these last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now ?graded by scientists to somewhere between “low confidence” to “exceptionally unlikely;” . ? Read more »

A kick in the nuts for Warmists

One day the Warmists are going to be lined up and forced to apologise for the fear, lies, and taxes they foisted upon the world, I just hope that day comes soon. Meanwhile they continue to claim all manner of anomolies are caused by Global Warming. Christopher Booker tears into the warmists and exposes their techniques.

Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world. Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years. The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future “such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent”. He didn’t explain what might have caused the similar hot weather 130 years ago.

If they can argue that unusual weather events that “prove” their as yet un-proven theory that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it, then the opposite must also be true, in fact the opposite is actually more likely to be true.

Meanwhile, notably little attention has been paid to the disastrous chill which has been sweeping South America thanks to an inrush of air from the Antarctic, killing hundreds in the continent’s coldest winter for years.

In America, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been trumpeting that, according to its much-quoted worldwide temperature data, the first six months of this year were the hottest ever recorded. But expert analysis on Watts Up With That, the US science blog, shows that NOAA’s claimed warming appears to be strangely concentrated in those parts of the world where it has fewest weather stations. In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all.

In other words, the warmists simply lie and continue to lie to prove the un-proven. Fortunately there are actually thousands of enthusiastic amateurs and some seasoned professional out there that can, with modern technology, show the world their lies.

A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the “Climategate” scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been “vindicated”. But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.

The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about. Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill ? bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU’s former director ? an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry.

This technique, you will notice has been used by the sock-puppets at The Standard and also by other “luminaries” of the left like Bomber. The sad truth too is that precious few in the MSM repeater and churnalist ranks routinely question the warmists. When they were caught pants down and in the back of a goat with the CRU emails, the MSM largely looked the other way, until bloggers released so much information that it could no longer be ignored. Similarly with the egregious errors discovered in the IPCC AR4. It is outrageous that an organisation, reputedly staffed by the world’s leading experts, made palpably false claims and the media and politicians simply shrugged and allowed them to say that mistakes happen and then continued to fund them to the tune of billions.

A third technique, most familiar of all, has been to fall back on the dog-eared claim that leading sceptics only question warmist orthodoxy because they have been funded by “Big Oil” and the “fossil fuel industry”. Particularly bizarre was a story last week covering the front page and an inside page of one newspaper, headed “Oil giant gives ?1?million to fund climate sceptics”.

The essence of this tale was that Exxon Mobil, the oil giant that is the world’s third biggest company, last year gave “almost ?1 million” to four US think-tanks. These had gone on to dismiss the Climategate inquiries as “whitewashes”.

It was hardly necessary to be given money by Exxon to see what was dubious about those inquiries. Not one of the knowledgeable sceptics who have torn them apart has received a cent from Big Oil. But what made this particularly laughable was that the penny-packets given to think-tanks that have been largely irrelevant to the debate are utterly dwarfed by the colossal sums poured into the army of groups and organisations on the other side of the argument.

Even the big oil companies have long been putting their real money into projects dedicated to showing how they are in favour of a “low-carbon economy”. In 2002 Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford University to fund research into energy sources needed to fight global warming. BP, which rebranded itself in 2004 as “Beyond Petroleum”, gave $500 million to fund similar research.

The Grantham Institute provides another example. It was set up at the LSE and Imperial College with ?24?million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire, to advise governments and firms on how to promote and invest in ways to “fight climate change”, now one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the world.

Compare the funding received by a handful of think-tanks to the hundreds of billions of dollars lavished on those who speak for the other side by governments, foundations, multinational corporations, even Big Oil, and the warmists are winning hands down. But only financially: they are not winning the argument.

No, they are not winning the argument, except perhaps here in New Zealand where we have a Prime Minister and a government advised by an idiot, scared of upsetting the hand-wringers and panty-waists of middle New Zealand, scared to an inch of their over-taxed lives by the lies of the warmists.

I can hardly wait for the day when they will be forced to apologise. I want Al Gore to be first on the list, that is if he can tear himself away from massage therapy.

×