more scientists caught manipulating data to prove global warming

[rolltide]

more "scientists" caught fudging data for their global warming cult:

[h=2]Australian Met Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Records[/h]

By Guest Column Dr. Benny Peiser August 23, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
5


The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming. Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science. Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming. In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

_________________________________________________________________

[h=1]Australian Met Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Records[/h]

• Date: 23/08/14
• Graham Lloyd, The Australian

[h=2]The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.[/h]

Cooling turns to warming. Source: The Australian ​

Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.
In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate *related changes need to be *accounted for in the data for *reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
Dr Marohasy said she had found examples where there had been no change in instrumentation or siting and no inconsistency with nearby stations but there had been a dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.
She said that at Amberley in Queensland, homogenisation had resulted in a change in the temperature trend from one of cooling to dramatic warming.
She calculated homogenisation had changed a cooling trend in the minimum temperature of 1C per century at Amberley into a warming trend of 2.5C. This was despite there being no change in location or instrumentation.

 

[SheriffJoe]

 

[Willie99]

^^^^^^

I coined the expression "libtards", does Dixon Diaz peruse theRx?

 

[Acebb]

President Idiot, right on cue

[h=1]Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty[/h]
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/u...ng-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

 

[Dave007inVegas]

President Idiot, right on cue

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/u...ng-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

He’s really stepping up to the plate with his pen and phone.

I wonder if realizes that his pen has ran out of ink and his phone has been disconnected.

 

[Acebb]

He’s really stepping up to the plate with his pen and phone.

I wonder if realizes that his pen has ran out of ink and his phone has been disconnected.

I am not clear he realizes he is still President every day until Jan 2017.

He seems to just come up with this stupid BS randomly then go back to the next fundraiser/party/golf course.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I am not clear he realizes he is still President every day until Jan 2017.

He seems to just come up with this stupid BS randomly then go back to the next fundraiser/party/golf course.

I hear he moved out of the WH into the…

 

[Michelangelo]

haha

 

[GasMan]

But Akphi says the evidence is indisputable. How can that be?

He says it's no longer a question of if there IS global warming, just HOW MUCH there is.

Geez.. I wish I could manipulate data to fit my agenda and then have people accept it as fact because I have a title of scientist.

Lmao..what a bunch of ass jockeys.

 

[mplastered]

But Akphi says the evidence is indisputable. How can that be?

He says it's no longer a question of if there IS global warming, just HOW MUCH there is.

Geez.. I wish I could manipulate data to fit my agenda and then have people accept it as fact because I have a title of scientist.

Lmao..what a bunch of ass jockeys.

Well,maybe he's right and we're just all dumb. Ahhhhhh, just kidding.

 

[ScottL]

A large portion of the hot air on this planet is contained right here in this thread.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Happy 18th Birthday No Global Warming! After Nearly Two Decades, We're Still Waiting for the Climate to Change[/h]


Share on facebook1138
Share on email
Share on google_plusone_share7
Share on twitter211

by James Delingpole 5 Sep 2014, 5:04 AM PDT 535post a comment

[h=2]All right, so we're slightly premature. By one measure - according to Bishop Hill - we're still a month away before "no global warming" achieves its coming of age.[/h]But by other measurements, as Matt Ridley notes in the Wall Street Journal, we're already as much as 19 or even 26 years into "no global warming" "depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere."
Still, whichever measurement you pick, it's really not looking good for the Warmists - whose stubborn ongoing refusal to acknowledge the failure of the planet's temperatures to accord with their computer models' doomsday predictions is starting to look so shameless and desperate it's really about time they considered a name change. How about "deniers"?
Sure, they've found lots of excuses to explain the so-called "pause" in global warming. ("Pause" by the way is a most unscientific term which we really shouldn't allow them to get away with. It presupposes that they know that continued warming is inevitable. Which they don't. No one does - and that's the fundamental problem)
According to Ridley, they've found at least three dozen:

Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.
The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.
​

And you never know - one of these myriad excuses might actually hold some water. But even if one of them does, it scarcely lets the Warmists off the hook. On the contrary, it makes their predicament even worse. That's because, if any of these theories are correct then it means that "natural variation" (ie climate doing what climate will, regardless of man's puny influence) is much greater than all those computer models have previously acknowledged.
Or, to put it another way, it means that all that certainty about the causes of global warming and the likelihood of its increasing dramatically (as expressed with increasing hysteria in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's five assessment reports) is based on a massive lie. These people claim to know but they haven't a clue.
Matt Ridley sometimes likens the drastic measures being urged on us to combat climate change as like "using chemotherapy to cure a cold." But it could be even worse than that. We know the patient doesn't have cancer. It now looks increasingly probable that the poor patient who is being put through all this misery at the mad climate doctors' behest doesn't even have a sniffle.

 

[russ1945]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[h=1]Hillary: ‘Climate Change Is Most Urgent, Consequential Challenge We Face’[/h]


Share on facebook222
Share on email
Share on google_plusone_share0
Share on twitter94

by Robert Wilde 5 Sep 2014, 10:54 AM PDT 427post a comment

[h=2]On Thursday at Harry Reid's annual energy conference in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton said, "Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face."[/h]The former Secretary of State and the likely 2016 Democratic frontrunner for president added, "The threat is real, and so is the opportunity… if we make the hard choices."
According to the National Journal, Clinton offered her support for President Obama’s climate action plan and EPA rules to restrict power plant emissions. Moreover, she espoused the great potential for renewable energy sources and made no mention of the Keystone XL pipeline. Clinton envisions America as the "clean energy superpower of the 21st century."
The majority of Clinton's address centered on foreign policy, the Journal reported. The former First Lady emphasized that the U.S. needs to strengthen its international agreements to combat climate change and called for a "strong agreement, applicable to all."
Clinton is optimistic that a strong agreement can be reached now that Obama's climate action plan is in place. Clinton proudly stated that the U.S. can now "show the world we are serious about meeting our obligations and show... the U.S. can still do big things.”
Obama’s action plan aims to cut carbon emissions in America and to establish bilateral initiatives with China, India, and other major emitting countries.
Some critics believe that raised carbon levels are not necessarily detrimental. Breitbart News reported in early July that the rise of carbon emissions may actually increase biodiversity on the planet.
According to Doctor Craig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,increased levels of C02 reduce the negative effects of a number of plant stresses including: high salinity, low light, high and low temperatures, insufficient water, air pollution, and C02 protects against herbivores, i.e. being eaten by animals and insects.

 

[8ate]

Darwin fudged Data; gotta make data to what proves your point..>>medical "double blind" experiments are not beyond manipulation by billion dollar corporations.

 

[rolltide]

[h=1]Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months[/h]

Updated list of 38 ‘excuses’ for the nearly 18 year temperature ‘pause’ or standstill in global warming
​

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 7, 2014 9:57 PM with 38 comments

Special to Climate Depot​

Global Temperature Update
No global warming for 17 years 11 months …
… or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.
Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.
This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 11 months, or 215 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.
Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to August 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to August 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature

• The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.

• The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

• The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

• The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

• Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

• The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

• In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

• The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

• Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

• The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

• The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

• From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

• Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

 

[rolltide]

- funny that almost no high schooler that graduates next year was alive for a day under any real "global warming" but those dumbass teens will be the first to tell you about how desperate the situation is

anyway....

[h=3]Updated list of 38 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming[/h]“If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”

RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming

An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’[debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason” 32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed [debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

An incomplete list of excuses

UPDATE: C3 updates the Wayne’s World graphic:

Related:

 

[carlspackler]

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.​

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.​

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”​

​

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”​

Crichon, 01/17/03

 

[rolltide]

Crichon, 01/17/03

he had a great book called state of fear which is a, ahemm, fictional story about global warming cultists who will do almost anything to prove this religion.

highly recommend anyone read it...all the data included in the book is 100% accurate and footnoted although at this point the book is 10 years old.

 

[pubguy]

http://youtu.be/Uif1NwcUgMU

 

[pubguy]

The late John Daly established this great website. Lots of info here.

http://www.john-daly.com/