Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[Lite Beer]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

By Christopher Booker

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”.

The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Read More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html?fb_ref=Default

--The Telegraph 2015-04-25

[zydeco]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

[JetsetBkk]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

All of us with more than half a brain are.

Perhaps they could also look into whether the Nepal earthquake was caused by fracking.

[NeverSure]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

I don't enjoy it at all. Read the other thread on here contemporaneous with this one which spells out a need to change refrigerants at a massive cost to the public but a huge profit to corporations.

Most people can understand the words "corporate greed" but for some reason they miss "scientist greed." Scientists, at least until now, didn't dare go against "global warming" (a long debunked theory which had to be replaced with "climate change") because their research money came from governments and yes, corporations and they'd get cut off if they didn't go along. Their colleges would boo them out of the biz.

I'm always stunned that people would use charts going back 50 or even 200 years to show a trend when the earth is millions of years old and the fossil record shows that the climate has always been in flux. Tree growth rings show periods of low growth and high growth over periods back as far as they can try to date the fossils.

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

[ABCer]

I, personally, enjoyed the carbon tax most of all.

First fraud campaign on a global scale. Not clear how it was going to help. But clear as daylight that the cookie jar holder can never be held responsible for any outcome. Brilliant!

[surangw]

another group of "top scientists " comes out

[Chicog]

Pretty weak post and title for a News thread.

Maybe you should open a salacious tittle tattle thread.

As for the author, apart from most likely being a paid spokesman for the Koch Brothers' Heartland Institute, he really isn't very bright.

In previous years, commentators have misrepresented the annual autumn freeze-up as the Arctic sea ice 'recovering' from its declining trend. For example, Christopher Booker, in a 2008 Telegraph article entitled " So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all" wrote:

"Yet [the NSIDC's] graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km."

As George Monbiot has pointed out:

"He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter."

During 2007, Arctic summer sea ice reached a record low extent, an anomalous event that resulted from specific weather conditions. Ice extents for years subsequent to 2007, whilst continuing to follow the overall trend of sea ice loss, have not reached the 2007 low, although 2011 came very close.

Booker has also misused this 2007 anomaly, comparing ice extents for later years to 2007 and declaring that sea ice is recovering. This is a prime example of 'cherry picking' data, as it completely ignores the long term trend of sea ice decline.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/will-christopher-booker-declare-%E2%80%98arctic-sea-ice-recovering%E2%80%99-again

[Rob8891]

I strongly suggest you read this article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/scepticism-over-rising-temperatures-lord-lawson-peddles-a-fake-controversy which clarifies the background to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Who is behind it? That <!!!!!!!!!!> individual Nigel Lawson, former sycophant in the Thatcher Government. Who funds this "Foundation" - his rich friends and the poor old tax-payer since it claims charitable status.

[englishoak]

Cooking the books ? what a surprise.

[arjunadawn]

As a number of us have noted only recently, a number of scientists have become wholly owned subsidiaries of political designs or companies, corporations who are also in bed with political machinations. The threads connecting the lot add up to one big B#2qwJobb! It is not surprising that scientists would eventually be forced to self police. There is only so long you can just make crap up, or observe phenomena and assign it to the fantasy agenda. Were the leftist redistributionist solutions not so militant and insidiously there could have easily been a gradual collective deceit; however, it was not gentle lying and the camps quickly divided into their respective political camps.

Why would it all devolve into political camps?This didn't happen when we stood Newton on his head. This didnt happen when water was declared outside the earth. This didn't happen when Pangaea was asserted, or Continental drift. No, it happened regarding "climate change" because its core element is not science but social engineering stalking as objectivity and reason.

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

I don't enjoy it at all. Read the other thread on here contemporaneous with this one which spells out a need to change refrigerants at a massive cost to the public but a huge profit to corporations.

Most people can understand the words "corporate greed" but for some reason they miss "scientist greed." Scientists, at least until now, didn't dare go against "global warming" (a long debunked theory which had to be replaced with "climate change") because their research money came from governments and yes, corporations and they'd get cut off if they didn't go along. Their colleges would boo them out of the biz.

I'm always stunned that people would use charts going back 50 or even 200 years to show a trend when the earth is millions of years old and the fossil record shows that the climate has always been in flux. Tree growth rings show periods of low growth and high growth over periods back as far as they can try to date the fossils.

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

Scientist and corporate greed has become the same thing. The scientist creates a false flag (or are paid to do so) which is used to increase corporate profit which gives them more money to spend on scientists to strengthen their false flag and to pay MSM to publish only their narrative. The ozone layer was the trail run for todays global warming/climate change. The truth is the ozone hole is still there and there are no new research done to scientifically prove that taking CFC's out have decreased the size of the ozone hole. The effect of CFC's are also long lasting which means old research must be updated to show progress or lack thereof.

[Scott]

Posts using a large font and bold have been removed. Please use the default post.

Please stay on topic.

[Kerryd]

There is no doubt that much of the "climate change" hysteria is politically (and financially) motivated. One just has to look at the recent history of the earth like say just the last epoch (the Holocene epoch that started about 11,700 years ago) to see that it has experienced dramatic changes in climate quite often.

Remember, one theory about how North America was populated is that ancient people crossed over from Asia at a time when ocean levels were much lower (due to more water being frozen and larger ice caps at the poles and in some case, the tectonic plates being "higher" than they are now). Those land bridges are thought to be upwards of 500 feet below current ocean levels (which is one reason why they have a real hard time finding traces of the first people to cross over from Asia). For the oceans to rise in the neighbourhood of 500 feet before reaching their current levels, would mean that there was considerable geological and climate change long before man was able to make any noticeable impact on things.

It is thought that there was a warm spell that lasted from around 2,250 to 1,600 years ago (250 BC to 400 AD - the "Roman Warm Period") where the temperatures and conditions were similar to what we are currently experiencing.

As well, in the Middle Ages there was what is called the "Little Ice Age" when temperatures dropped significantly and climatic changes were noticed around the world (to a degree not witnessed prior to that period, or since that period). There is even a somewhat controversial map from 1513 that depicts an ice-free Antarctic coastline (which supposedly hasn't been ice-free for at least 6,000 years which in itself proves that in the not so distant past, temperatures had to have been significantly warmer than they are now, without human interaction) !

Our planet goes through various cooling/warming phases without regard to the wee little ants that overpopulate it. These changes are due to a number of (non-human) causes. Seismic activity (volcanoes, earthquakes) can cause significant changes by themselves by clouding the skies and changing the ocean currents (which would also result in changes to weather patterns). Solar activity can have an affect. Meteors (not just for killing dinosaurs) ! Some of those things could trigger other things.

For example, increased solar activity results in higher temperatures, resulting in melting ice caps and "global warming" for a period but also resulting in drier conditions in other areas leading to things like increased numbers of forest fires (polluting the skies with smoke/ash reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface), reducing the amount of oxygen produced/carbon-dioxide reduced. Increased soil erosion resulting in other environmental changes that add up over the course of centuries. Obviously, a meteor strike could also cause earthquakes and trigger volcanic eruptions, in addition to the the potential environmental effect it would have on it's own.

I believe that one possible cause is our very orbit around the sun every year. We know that the earth rotates on it's axis, but it isn't a stable axis. We "wobble" as we spin around. For that same reason I believe that our orbit around the sun also "wobbles" to the extent that, over the course of many centuries (or even millennia) we are fractionally closer to the sun for a period (global warming) and then over the course of many more centuries/millennia we are fractionally further away (ice ages). (Take a piece of paper, mark 2 small dots on it a few inches apart. Draw an oval from one dot around the other one. Draw the oval again. And again, and again. How often are you able to keep to exactly the same line ? How often do you stray a wee bit ? Imagine that line being drawn 4 billion times, each one is never quite exactly like the first one, but pretty close.. You start off with one thin line and end up with one thick one. That's how I see our orbit around the sun.)

Combine that with various other factors and we could see significant changes in our climate in a very short time, even within our own lifetimes, without any human intervention at all.

[lvr181]

Have we never had global warming before? If we did, did humans cause it?

Or perhaps it is just another natural cycle in the Earth's history.

[phycokiller]

actually if you look at the data the RSS and UAH data do not give a strikingly different picture, even if presidential candidates and the koch brothers say they do

so called top scientists, even those employed by the heartland foundation, have tried numerous times to prove these figures are fiddled and.... you arent going to hear the results here or on fox news because its not very newsworthy and slightly embarrassing for them when it turns out that the figures havent been fiddled

Edited April 28, 2015 by phycokiller

[NeverSure]

-snip-

For example, increased solar activity results in higher temperatures, resulting in melting ice caps and "global warming" for a period but also resulting in drier conditions in other areas leading to things like increased numbers of forest fires (polluting the skies with smoke/ash reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface), reducing the amount of oxygen produced/carbon-dioxide reduced.

Before European settlers moved to North America lightning strikes would start forest fires all across Canada and the US. Those fires would burn until Fall rains put them out. The amount of carbon emissions had to have been enormous and it must have circled the globe. Now that there's the ability to fight those fires they don't often get all that big.

The big fire in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 was mammoth and many thought the park was lost for generations. Think of the carbon emissions.

But lessons learned from that fire tell us that fire is nature's way of cleansing and renewing. Many tree seeds actually need the heat to pop out of cones. The park is back better than ever because the fire cleaned out the underbrush as it's supposed to do and let new seedlings which grew spontaneously get light and get nutrients from the ash. Plant diseases were killed.

Now the policy is to let fires burn unless they threaten civilization including lives. If the fires burn regularly as nature intended there is never enough brush fuel to make a fire that will kill the tall trees. Man caused the unnatural buildup of brush which made the fires so hot instead of getting the periodic fires that didn't have enough fuel to hurt anything.

So it was as late as the 1990's when "scientists" finally learned that forest fires are a necessary part of nature, and nature had to teach them.

[ToddinChonburi]

Yes GLOBAL COOLING !!!! OOOPS I MEAN GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!! OOOOOPS I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE !!!!!

OK what you going to come up with now ? Check out all the record temps that were set back in the 1930's yes go look, this was pointed out by a local weather man.

Let the weather Nazzi's go !!!!

[ToddinChonburi]

Now they blame any weather change on man. if it snows, if it rains. They hope you have a real bad memory, unfortunately I can remember the weather when I was a kid. And the storms.

[ToddinChonburi]

-snip-

For example, increased solar activity results in higher temperatures, resulting in melting ice caps and "global warming" for a period but also resulting in drier conditions in other areas leading to things like increased numbers of forest fires (polluting the skies with smoke/ash reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface), reducing the amount of oxygen produced/carbon-dioxide reduced.

Before European settlers moved to North America lightning strikes would start forest fires all across Canada and the US. Those fires would burn until Fall rains put them out. The amount of carbon emissions had to have been enormous and it must have circled the globe. Now that there's the ability to fight those fires they don't often get all that big.

The big fire in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 was mammoth and many thought the park was lost for generations. Think of the carbon emissions.

But lessons learned from that fire tell us that fire is nature's way of cleansing and renewing. Many tree seeds actually need the heat to pop out of cones. The park is back better than ever because the fire cleaned out the underbrush as it's supposed to do and let new seedlings which grew spontaneously get light and get nutrients from the ash. Plant diseases were killed.

Now the policy is to let fires burn unless they threaten civilization including lives. If the fires burn regularly as nature intended there is never enough brush fuel to make a fire that will kill the tall trees. Man caused the unnatural buildup of brush which made the fires so hot instead of getting the periodic fires that didn't have enough fuel to hurt anything.

So it was as late as the 1990's when "scientists" finally learned that forest fires are a necessary part of nature, and nature had to teach them.

They do not even manage the forests anymore, they had a big storm go through the Boundary Waters and they would not let them go in and clean it up. They were warned it would be a mess if it burned. Well years later lightning started a fire and it all burned but no one would talk about the failure to act to prevent it.

[maoro2013]

One of problems is that the whole issue has so much momentum as there are many interested parties who benefit from the hype

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

I don't enjoy it at all. Read the other thread on here contemporaneous with this one which spells out a need to change refrigerants at a massive cost to the public but a huge profit to corporations.

Most people can understand the words "corporate greed" but for some reason they miss "scientist greed." Scientists, at least until now, didn't dare go against "global warming" (a long debunked theory which had to be replaced with "climate change") because their research money came from governments and yes, corporations and they'd get cut off if they didn't go along. Their colleges would boo them out of the biz.

I'm always stunned that people would use charts going back 50 or even 200 years to show a trend when the earth is millions of years old and the fossil record shows that the climate has always been in flux. Tree growth rings show periods of low growth and high growth over periods back as far as they can try to date the fossils.

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

This is why I don't believe in dinosaurs.

[noosard]

And the hottest temp in Thailand was 55 years ago

[Chicog]

And the hottest average year?

[Reigntax]

The biggest problem science faces today is lazy scientists who rather than deal with the evidence, form an opinion or theory and then manipulate the evidence to justify their theory.

If we consider the great scientists of the last 500 or so years, the sole basis of their research was to obtain knowledge. Despite the difficulties with distance, they openly encouraged peer review of their research and in doing so had to defend against opposed opinions which if done so, resulted in these theories being considered great scientific discoveries.

Scientists today, will not accept opposing views, don't encourage opposing peer reviews, produce theories that are flawed through lack of research or unknown variables and expect the world to accept their findings without question. They then rely on people with extremist tendencies to further push these opinions on the rest of the population and label those who question any aspect as disbelievers, sceptics or those in denial.

The debate is shut down because it does not suit their objectives.

It is quiet obvious that a natural cycle of warming and cooling occurs on earth and the frequency may be effected by both natural and human causes. Whether this in the long term is good or bad is unknown. Also unknown are all the factors which influence these cycles and what environmental conditions provide the most stable environment.

The climate change/ global warming subject is unable to be properly debated because opposed views will not be accepted in any argument. It's, 'I have my opinion and whatever you say, prove or disprove, I will still maintain my position' attitude that is stalling accurate research and debate.

We earthlings probably only have knowledge of less than 5% of the variables which may effect the earths cycle and in any other situation basing a theory on such incomplete knowledge would be considered negligence or incompetence.

For a scientist to make such conclusions is a disgrace to the scientific community.

The day I hear a scientist state that he/ she believes there is a relationship between climate change and the factor x but at this stage is unable to make a definate finding due to lack of understanding all the issues, then this is someone we should listen to.

Unfortunately the science community is lacking people willing to do the hard unrewarding work and who without a predetermined opinion can look at an issue objectively and without bias.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Reigntax

[Godders]

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The only question is - whose?

[angiolo]

Well if it means that the warm water current flowing from the Gulf of Mexico to Europe should stop due to Global Warming the we would have an ICE AGE . So for some it would be COOOOOLING

[arjunadawn]

Before European settlers moved to North America lightning strikes would start forest fires all across Canada and the US. Those fires would burn until Fall rains put them out. The amount of carbon emissions had to have been enormous and it must have circled the globe. Now that there's the ability to fight those fires they don't often get all that big.

The big fire in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 was mammoth and many thought the park was lost for generations. Think of the carbon emissions.

But lessons learned from that fire tell us that fire is nature's way of cleansing and renewing. Many tree seeds actually need the heat to pop out of cones. The park is back better than ever because the fire cleaned out the underbrush as it's supposed to do and let new seedlings which grew spontaneously get light and get nutrients from the ash. Plant diseases were killed.

Now the policy is to let fires burn unless they threaten civilization including lives. If the fires burn regularly as nature intended there is never enough brush fuel to make a fire that will kill the tall trees. Man caused the unnatural buildup of brush which made the fires so hot instead of getting the periodic fires that didn't have enough fuel to hurt anything.

So it was as late as the 1990's when "scientists" finally learned that forest fires are a necessary part of nature, and nature had to teach them.

The average recent estimate for volcanic carbon footprint, co2, was estimated at a staggering 300 million tons/year. My point is not that this is more or less than humans contribute only that as an average we can expect, over geologic time, perhaps some years 600 million tons, perhaps some years tens of thousands of tons, etc. In each case, as noted by the fact that we exist today, the earth employs its considerable diversity that was developed and evolved to interdependently maintain equilibrium, a global homeostasis of sorts. The idea that in some impossibly irrelevant span of years man arrives and adds or detracts to the process and this constitutes catastrophe is poppycock!

It was noted but hardly reasoned in at least one online article, with regard to volcanic co2 emissions being extraordinary, that the nature of these products deflects sun in the upper atmosphere rather then allowing sun to pass, but later reflecting it back (suggesting humans cause warming and volcanoes cooling). This is of course just speculation as this was not what was researched, co2 emissions were. It was a wide open door that you could drive a climate change truck through and apologists closed the door by just adding this caveat- different particulate behavior. Nonsense.

At any point in this debate, from any position, one can objectively take a break, lay down the science argument and its interpretations and ask each other "What about the politics?" The largest issue in the "climate change" debate is not even the science. The initial sale of "global warming" and "hockey-sticks" stalled* and the political machinations that had originally contrived, packaged, and made laden the stalking horse to march a very specific globalist agenda then had to manipulate, repackage, resell, modify, adjust fire, even rename the farce from "global warming" to "climate change," and lacking the slightest modesty to conceal the relationship the politics took front and center stage. In other words, the emerging social and political awareness secondary to the science did not actually develop secondary at all; it was not grassroots, ground up; it is grossly apparent the politics came first and then the "science," mostly products of model input, and this was fed downward and inflicted on a skeptical population. Dissect the scope of politics and remedies associated with effectively winning the "climate change" fantasy and you will have before you a dim vision of the future, far more dystopic than the horrors they suggest doing nothing will bring. The combined proposals, regulations, laws, and subordination of States and peoples is downright terrifying. (Have little doubt the eugenics folks are not far behind).

*This Machiavellian mentality so obviously reminds me of the political maxim best articulated by the Obama pal Rahm Emmanuel when he said

So, I googled "...you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." and apparently others have also noted this same fulcrum with regard to "climate change." Indeed, though this google book link cites data from as early as the 1970s there are other documents from the 60s also noting political ends could be better achieved by harnessing the population around an imminent threat, a global threat. (I will not cite those docs here).

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=Z37cm3k1SRMC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=political+maxim+do+not+let+any+crisis+go+to+waste&source=bl&ots=oAKG-BJ_i0&sig=sbASFCOeVWju13r660f-yQQpI4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uLo_VcTsNtCCuwTkj4HQBg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=political%20maxim%20do%20not%20let%20any%20crisis%20go%20to%20waste&f=false

It is noteworthy that the Holden of the 70s who first started birthing global warming as a stalking horse for tyranny was chosen by Obama to be the Science Czar.

[bendejo]

If you keep a matter in contention good chance it will never be settled. Unless reality intervenes.

So all of these corporate entities with an interest in denying climate change will keep at it with the "we have our own experts and they do not agree."

Their motives are clear: they don't want this climate change chatter to interfere with their money making. What I do not understand is why someone who is not part of such an entity would defend them. Why defend people like the Koch brothers if you are not a family member or shareholder? They are NOT going to give you preferential treatment for being their cheerleader, pal. On the other hand if they started fracking next door to you it will change your tune.

Three summers of disappointing grain production in the US will greatly affect the entire world, EVEN YOU, regardless of what teevee 'news' station you support.

Edited April 28, 2015 by bendejo

[lvr181]

If you keep a matter in contention good chance it will never be settled. Unless reality intervenes.

So all of these corporate entities with an interest in denying climate change will keep at it with the "we have our own experts and they do not agree."

Their motives are clear: they don't want this climate change chatter to interfere with their money making. What I do not understand is why someone who is not part of such an entity would defend them. Why defend people like the Koch brothers if you are not a family member or shareholder? They are NOT going to give you preferential treatment for being their cheerleader, pal. On the other hand if they started fracking next door to you it will change your tune.

Three summers of disappointing grain production in the US will greatly affect the entire world, EVEN YOU, regardless of what teevee 'news' station you support.

"...disappointing grain production in the US will greatly affect the entire world..." Are you a citizen of the USA? "The entire world"? Does the "entire world" revolve around the USA?

[arjunadawn]

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates

This is the most useful maxim a legitimate existence can assert; know no thing unless you can fully know it and find it self evident. Ok, you look upon the world and see the climate changing, your a bit lazy because you are not aware that there is so much more going on, so you conclude "Yep, the climates a changin. Better fix it or else." What if there is so much more. What if a "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" had entirely different designs based on your narrowly accepting the observation that "Yep..."?

I submit to you that the issue regarding climate change, fiddled global warming figures, and the whole pot luck is contrived. Would you have an examined life it is not necessary to take what I saw seriously, but if you dismiss it out of hand without even considering the merits of my attached points then you are exactly the type of person being targeted, and successfully I might add. Look at who is saying what about climate change, and why. Notice that the fantasy about climate change is openly acknowledged by the most powerful people on earth to be nothing more than a political agenda. Note too, I implore you, that the next phase of having their good inflicted upon us is population control. Wrong? I only ask you consider the quotes I attach and do some homework. Reach your own conclusions, but please, do not just note "its warmer lately" and conclude [they] are correct. If you do choose to, at least know who "they" are; you will not be pleased.

Climate Change and the Agenda.pdf

Edited April 29, 2015 by arjunadawn