‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds

global warming
FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images

Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found.

The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.

What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.

This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.

The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.

Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Met Office Lies: December Was Not the ‘Wettest Month Evah’

This is at best dishonest and at worst a blatant lie. Its only excuse is that cunning little asterisk, which leads you to the weasel get-out clause “*Data from the Met Office’s UK digitised records dating back to 1910.”

So not “since records began” then. But, rather, “since the records that suit our political purpose began.” Because, of course, as Paul Homewood notes the Met Office has records going much further back than 1910 – to 1776, in fact – which totally demolish this claim.

We know, for example, that the wettest December in England and Wales was in 1876. And that the wettest calendar month was in October 1903.

But of course it suits the Met Office’s purposes to pretend otherwise because it enables on-message environment correspondents like the BBC’s Warmist-In-Chief Roger Harrabin to continue the spurious narrative that there is a link between “extreme weather events” and “climate change.”

Storms propelled by the jet stream were mainly to blame, it says, with contributions from the El Nino weather phenomenon and man-made climate change.

That “and man-made climate change” appears to be a flourish of Harrabin’s. I can’t find any mention of this alleged fact in the Met Office’s original press release. If the BBC had any integrity it would have sacked this activist long ago. Harrabin is entitled to his religious beliefs but it is not for the BBC to indulge his flagrant bias at licence-fee payers’ expense.

The Met Office too is in clear breach of public standards codes here.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

BBC’s Green Gestapo Punishes Presenter for WrongThink

Quentin Letts, the censured journalist, has described his experiences here. He likens it to being airbrushed out of one of Stalin’s photographs: one minute, his documentary – about the Met Office – was freely available on the web; the next it had been written out of history. (But you can still read the full transcription here)

And all because some of the people he interviewed said a few disobliging – but perfectly accurate – things about the way Britain’s state-funded meteorological organisation has been hijacked by climate change alarmists.

In his piece, Letts chooses to be mildly amused by the BBC’s high-handed response to his journalism.

Meanwhile, the BBC top brass held meetings about my allegedly scandalous programme.

Apparently we should have done more to explain the science of climate change. There was a danger that listeners were ‘misled’ by my interviews with Mr Lilley and Labour MP Graham Stringer, who argued that the Met Office were ‘excellent’ at short-term forecasts but ‘very poor’ at climate and medium-term predictions.

I was on the naughty step. That was the last I thought of the matter until last month, when I received a long document from the BBC Trust — a draft of an official inquiry into my misdeeds, complete with a conclusion that there had been a ‘serious’ breach of BBC rules on impartiality in my programme. I was given a few hours to offer any comments before the finding was likely to be made public.

The report, which must have cost thousands of pounds to prepare (rather more than was spent on our programme, I’d wager), included news that from the outset of the production process it had been agreed that we would never touch on climate change.

Er, hang on, chaps. No one ever told me that. Why on earth would independent journalists accept such a stricture? Why should climate change be given such special protection?

Read the BBC Trust’s 20-page report into the incident, however, and you begin to appreciate why it was that George Orwell modelled his Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four on the BBC. Letts’s analogies to Stalin’s Soviet Union, you realise, are only slightly overdone.

Here, for example, is the entire department responsible for Lett’s programme being ordered to attend a re-education camp:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Children Just Aren’t Going to Know What Sun Is

Enjoy it while it lasts

There’s a great piece by David Rose in the Mail On Sunday nicely summing up what a lot of us here knew already: that the thing we really need to fear right now is not global warming but global cooling. And that, on current evidence, it’s global cooling we’re going to get.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Rose’s piece comes hot on the heels of an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 distinguished scientists (proper ones: not “climate” “scientists”) noting the continuing absence of ManBearPig:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

All true, of course. All very, very true. Which does rather invite the question: when’s the scam going to end? When are all those “climate” “scientists” at institutions like the University of Easy Access finally going to eat crow?

Actually this question is entirely rhetorical since I already know the answer: when hell freezes over.

Consider, for example, the fate of Dr David Viner – the University of Easy Access climatologist responsible for the most-read-ever story in the Independent when, in 2000, he famously deployed his meteorological expertise to tell us:

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

And where did “Nostradamus” Viner go?

Well, for a time he was in charge of disseminating climate change propaganda at taxpayers’ expense for the British Council.

More than £3.5 million has gone on recruiting a worldwide network of young “climate activists” in over 70 countries to engage in climate change propaganda – what Marxists used to call agitprop – and to pressure their politicians to join the worldwide struggle. Under a programme called Challenge Europe, £1.1 million has been paid out to fund young “climate advocates” in 17 countries across Europe, including Britain itself. But £2.5 million has been spent on a more ambitious project to recruit a global network of 100,000 activists in 60 countries across the world, led by 1,300 young “International Climate Champions”, to participate in “international peer networks, both in person and online, to share ideas, projects and experiences”.

Of this sum, £303,093.24 went to China; £71,262.91 to Brazil; £53,006.25 to Japan; £70,132.88 to India (including £11,000 to Dr Pachauri’s Teri institute); £77,507.89 to oil-rich Qatar; and £50,000 to the US. There was £120,000 for a dozen different countries in Africa, including £14,000 to fund climate champions in starving Zimbabwe.

So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain’s most discredited university department – the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA – made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to “decarbonise” the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called “climate change.”

Viner is not the exception: he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.

Related posts:

  1. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  2. ‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009
  3. Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…
  4. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

One thought on “Children just aren’t going to know what sun is”

  1. nigelbryancook says:15th February 2012 at 10:44 pmThe “consensus of experts” approach to defining what “science methodology” is pure academia. In history journals, peer review works because it is constructive: “peer” reviewers are honest and objective as far as possible. In science “peer” review, you always have corruption. This goes back to the so-called “profession” of science, circa 1850, when amateur free thinkers and experimentalists like bookbinder’s apprentice and Davy bottle-washer Michael Faraday (discoverer of electromagnetic induction, the thing that merely generates all electricity, drives all transformers and turns all electric motors) started to be replaced by Oxbridge educated dons. Here is the mathematician Oliver Heaviside describing censorship by dollar-grabbing professionals in 1893 (who left school at 14 to become a Morse code telegrapher, becoming obsessed by electromagnetic theory and correctly developing transmission line theory as well as predicting the ionosphere, the “Heaviside layer”).Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, vol 1, 1893, p337: “Internal obstruction and superficial construction … If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner – even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do that. Besides, the old practitioner [any so-called “professional” scientist in general as well] is apt to measure the value of science by the number of dollars he thinks it is likely to bring into his pocket, and if he does not see the dollars, he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaky manner [plagiarism], not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew about it when he was a little boy! He sees a prospect of dollars in the distance, that is the reason. The perfect obstructor [“peer”-review bias] having failed, try the perfect conductor. … Prof. Tait [the famed quaternionic expert] says he cannot understand my vectors, though he can understand much harder things. But men who have no quaterionic prejudices can understand them, and do.” – http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=juMqHkD7YHMC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&ganpub=k186085&ganclk=GOOG_GB_1469676051#v=onepage&q&f=true

Comments are closed.

Panic and fear close their icy tentacles round the doomed Met Office

No long range forecasts

Robert Napier: would you trust this man with your future?

Robert Napier: would you trust this man with your future?

Well at least that’s one heartening interpretation of this press release which the Met Office has just sent to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It comes from their Chief Press Officer, no less, Dave Britton.

The Met Office has not issued a seasonal forecast to the public and categorically denies forecasting a ‘mild winter’ as suggested by Boris Johnson <http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/> in his column in the Daily Telegraph.

Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public; instead we provide a monthly outlook on our website, which have consistent and clearly sign-posted the very cold conditions.

Our day-to-day forecasts have been widely recognised as providing excellent advice to government, businesses and the public with the Daily Telegraph commenting only today that ‘the weekends heavy snow was forecast with something approaching pin-point accuracy by the Met Office’.

The public trust and take heed of our warnings and it is misleading to imply that the Met Office did not see this cold weather coming.

So let’s get this right. We paid for 90 per cent of the Met office’s £30 million computer; we also fund a hefty chunk of its annual £170 million running costs. And now the Met office tells us that it is incapable of providing the effective long range forecasts we could get for a fraction of the price from Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi?

If this government were seriously minded to have its bonfire of the quangos, I think I know which useless outfit I’d be tossing onto the pyre next.

Oh and in case you wondered why the Met Office has been getting it so badly wrong, here’s Bishop Hill on its chairman Robert Napier.

Interesting fact: the Chairman of the Met Office board, Robert Napier, is or has been:

  • Chairman of the Green Fiscal Trust*
  • Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
  • a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
  • a director of the Carbon Group
  • Chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund UK

Source

He is also a member of the Green Alliance.

If we are supposed to reject the views of scientists, like Richard Lindzen, on the grounds that they have given speeches at thinktanks that have accepted money from oil interests, then I think its fair to say that we can safely discount anything said by the Met Office forthwith.

UPDATE:

Autonomous Mind offers more Met Office related hilarity. Seems that a mild winter was very much what the Met Office was predicting as recently as October:

The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

The eastern half of England, Cornwall, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in for temperatures above the 3.7C (38.6F) average, more than 2C warmer than last winter.

The map also shows a 40 per cent to 60 per cent probability that western England and Wales will be warmer than 3.7C (38.6F), with a much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures.

This surprised several independent forecasters at the time, including one from Positive Weather Solutions:

But other experts maintain we are in for another big freeze. Positive Weather Solutions senior forecaster Jonathan Powell said: “It baffles me how the Met Office can predict a milder-than-average winter when all the indicators show this winter will have parallels to the last one.

“They are standing alone here, as ourselves and other independent forecasters are all predicting a colder-than-average winter.

“It will be interesting to see how predictions by the government-funded Met Office compare with independent forecasters.”

Hmm, yes. I’ll say it will be.

Related posts:

  1. How the doomed Met Office tried to spin its way out of trouble
  2. Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their ‘science’ collapses
  3. Big, hot, shiny orb in sky caused by ‘climate change’ says UK Met Office
  4. The Met Office – defending the indefensible, as per usual

2 thoughts on “Panic and fear close their icy tentacles round the doomed Met Office”

  1. barbarausa says:22nd December 2010 at 5:15 amperhaps a bit OT, but I’m dropping by to wish you many happy returns of Christmas and New Year, and give you this link for a (cheap) gift:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_wolf_nation

    Didn’t you warn that the next big panic would be biodiversity?

    Well, the US Center for Biological Diversity has demanded that we reintroduce wolves in their historic range throughout the lower 48 states (of 50, President Obama’s misconception of more notwithstanding), and if you want to see how it plays out, remember we have something called the Second Amendment, as they who practice it often say.

    I wish the very best to you and yours this season, and please keep up the good work.

    When will your Watermelon book be available in the US, so I can present my county Board with copies before we vote them out of office?

  2. Velocity says:24th December 2010 at 12:21 pmHaving just driven from Rome to Geneva to Salsburg to Budapest I can tell you my fears of a frozen European winter have relaxed. It seems Britain with -2 to -8 Temps is suffering much more contrary to the UK Mets warmist weather forecasts.

    Gatwick has people suffering 5 days delay to flights while here in middle and eastern Europe all roads are entirely driveable, flights are running on time (save the bleating spoilt babies/arse-wipes of public sector strikes) and all is well (-12 last week has turned to +8 today in Hungary).

    How much longer does the UK has to suffer the hot air and loonacy of the Westminster Socialist Boys Club?

Comments are closed.

Warmists Overwhelmed by Fear, Panic and Deranged Hatred as Their ‘Science’ Collapses

A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial: (hat tip: Philip Thomas)

This is the third SI reader who has canceled his (it’s always a male) subscription over our climate change pieces in the current SI (not to mention the at least six who did so after our first round of articles several years ago). Boy, they don’t want to hear anything they disagree with, do they.

It is clear the anti-GW science crowd have their minds made up, and nothing anyone is going to say, no appeal to scientific evidence, no attempt to place things into an accurate context, no attempt to point out that many media and blog portrayals are not always fully accurate, no facts, no explanations, no attempts to show they themselves are being manipulated, nothing is ever going to change their minds. Very much like the evolution/creationist controversy, except that these are some of our longtime readers.

They do not want to engage forthrightly with factual, science-based statements or arguments. They only want their own views reinforced. There is no attempt at open-minded discussion or even fair argument. Just a determination to maintain their ideological purity and not have it be contaminated with any scientific information and perspective that doesn’t support their presuppositions. They want to draw a don’t-tell-me-anything-I-don’t-want-to-hear cocoon around themselves. Unfortunately, that cocoon is growing ever larger. And they know they are punishing us, because, even more than most publications, which have advertising, we depend mostly on subscription revenue.

Guess we should just go along with the crowd, the lynch mob. Hop on the bandwagon. Slam those damned ignorant climatologists coming up with all that nonsense about changing climate and a warming planet. Who needs science anyway?

All this is a roundabout way of answering one of my editors’ kind suggestions that I respond to this morning’s front page story in which some desperate scientists at the embarrassing, useless and parti pris Met Office have apparently attempted to repair their creaky, wheel-less AGW bandwagon with a hurried new botch job report. Sorry, but I don’t think many of us are going to fall for this nonsense any more.

Monbiot tried it on yesterday with his free two and half minute propaganda broadcast generously funded by the BBC’s The Daily Politics show in which he rehashed all his old arguments (man’s selfishness, rising sea-levels, plight of the poor, wind farms, blah di blah di blah) as though Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate et al had never happened. Now the MET office is having a go.

Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.
On all of which, more later….

Related posts:

  1. Green MP Caroline Lucas tries to keep science out of climate science
  2. Panic and fear close their icy tentacles round the doomed Met Office
  3. Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo!
  4. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann