‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study

worst climate change video
LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Images

Audio version.

The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.

According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans.

Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.

However, their exultant doom-mongering has been short lived. An independent analyst, Nic Lewis, examined the paper and quickly spotted it was based on flawed math.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump at NASA: Hasta la Vista Climate Fraud and Muslim Outreach…

NASA’s top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt has warned President-Elect Donald Trump that the planet just won’t stand for having a fully-fledged climate denier in the White House.

Good luck with that one, Gavin. Or “Toast” as we’ll shortly be calling you…

Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), told the Independent:

“The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

Unfortunately, Schmidt doesn’t feel so strongly on the issue that he is prepared to offer his resignation:

Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said.

“Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

Schmidt’s principled position on skewing results is somewhat ironic given that skewing results is what he does best.

Last year a German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert – a retired geologist and data computation expert – accused NASA GISS of having tampered with the raw data so extensively that it had effectively “invented” global warming.

As I reported at Breitbart:

He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

Ewert listed some of the trickery employed by Schmidt and his egregious predecessor James “Death Trains” Hansen to exaggerate the appearance of “global warming”.

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

This chart, comparing the satellite temperature records with Schmidt’s adjusted version, gives you an idea of the scale of the climate fraud being committed by NASA GISS.

Screen-Shot-2016-11-16-at-10.17.48-PM-768x577

Among Schmidt’s many outrageous adjustments are the ones he made to Iceland’s temperature data sets.

You can see – courtesy of Paul Homewood – what he did to the one at Reykjavik:

station-6

So long and slippery are Gavin’s tentacles that, it would appear, he has somehow persuaded the Iceland Met Office to accept these adjustments, where previously it had rebutted them. You can read the full story at Real Climate Science.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Study: NOAA Overestimated US Warming by 50%

This one, co-authored by meteorologist Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That? fame) shows that at least half of the “global warming” in the US since 1979 has been fabricated by NOAA.

While satellite records have shown no global warming for at least 18 years, the land based data sets like the ones maintained by NOAA for the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) continue to show a warming trend.

One reason for this discrepancy, the study suggests, is that NOAA has been cherry-picking its raw data. That is, it has ignored the evidence from those weather stations showing little or no late Twentieth century warming and instead placed undue emphasis on the ones that do show warming.

But the ones that do show warming also happen to be the least trustworthy. These are the ones, the study shows, which have been most corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect – and other environmental factors.

Some, for example, have been surrounded by buildings or had roads built next to them since they were first sited. Others have had airports vastly expand next door to them. What this inevitably means is that their more recent temperature measurements have been running hot – i.e., they have been distorted by factors which have nothing to do with weather or climate.

Yet, bizarrely, these are the ones that NOAA has been using as the basis for its claims about “global warming” in the US.

If, however, you look at those weather stations that haven’t been corrupted – “unperturbed” stations – what you get is US global warming roughly half as much as NOAA claims.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

American Meteorological Society: Investigating NOAA’s Dodgy Scientists Is ‘Intimidation’

It thinks that NOAA’s dodgy, data-fudging, parti-pris scientists should be allowed to go on spending taxpayers’ money on green propaganda unimpeded by the scrutiny of pesky skeptics like Rep Lamar Smith (R-Tex).

Here’s how the AMS’s executive director, Keith L Seitter, puts it in an open letter to the congressman:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Forget Climategate. This ‘Global Warming’ Scandal Is Much Bigger…

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.

Here, for example, is one of the two most prominent English sceptics in the House of Lords, Matt Ridley outlining his own position.

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

Though I’ve no reason to doubt the sincerity of Ridley’s position, I can also see plenty of reasons why it would be a politically convenient line for him to take. The same applies to Lord Lawson’s position on climate change and Bjorn Lomborg’s position on climate change. All of these distinguished figures on the mildly sceptical side of the argument have taken the view that the figures provided by the various scientific institutions, such as the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and NASA GISS, as relayed to us in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are broadly trustworthy. Their beef is not so much with “the science” as it is with the political hysteria and green propagandising that has accompanied that science, as well as with the counterproductive policies resulting from it.

To repeat, these may be earnest, heartfelt positions but they are also politically expedient ones. What it means is that in debates Lomborg and Lords Ridley and Lawson don’t come across as too “out there.” It means that they cannot, by any reasonable stretch, be tarred as “deniers”. Not only are they not denying the existence in “global warming” but they’re not even that far off from where the mainstream “consensus” is.

This all seems to me tactically wise. If their positions weren’t so eminently “reasonable” they would be invited to speak at organisations like the BBC even less often than they are already.

What it does, unfortunately, mean, though, is that those of us on the sceptical side of the debate who want to push the argument a bit further are put in danger of being made to look like extremists. Crazed conspiracy theorists even.

So before 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?

Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Take the ones in Paraguay – a part of the world which contributed heavily to NASA GISS’s recent narrative about 2014 having been the “hottest year on record.”

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.

He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)

All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.

Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.

puertoadj

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14

But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:

puertoraw

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1

Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?

Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.

marisgif

sangif

puegif

 

Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.

Except, guess what?

pilar

JUAN

CONCEPCION

ASUNCION

SAN JUAN

ENCARNACION

 OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing.

Read the rest – and there’s lots more – at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  2. Dodgy GISS temperature records exposed: the US Climategate?
  3. Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations
  4. Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Posted on 30th January 201530th January 2015Author jamesCategories BlogTags

One thought on “Forget Climategate. This ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger…”

  1. doc says:14th February 2015 at 11:33 pmThanks for all this stuff, I just dont get why people believe so readily. I expect you’ve seen the recent map from NASA’s new orbiting carbon satellite (OCO 2) which shows the jungle regions of the world as by far the biggest producers of CO2. Can’t wait to see how that gets turned around!

Comments are closed.

Wildlife Populations Have Dropped Over 50 per cent Since 1970 Says WWF. Bollocks!

The world’s wildlife population is collapsing – with fewer than half as many wild animals around today as there were in 1970. So claims the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) in its latest headline-grabbing report.

Here are some reasons why we ought to take these claims with a massive pinch of salt.

1. The WWF is not an objective scientific body but an environmental activist organisation with a strong vested interest in ramping up public hysteria, a) to put pressure on government to advance its preferred green totalitarian measures and b) to increase donations.

This is clearly evident if you actually look at the report from which these headline figures are taken. It abounds with scaremongering claims like: “We are not only threatening our health, prosperity and well-being, but our very future”, with pseudo-scientific greenie-lefty jargon like “planetary boundaries” and “sustainable development”, and anti-capitalist, anti-growth admonitions like “Changing our course and finding alternative pathways will not be easy. But it can be done.”

2.The environmental movement has a long and undistinguished track record of overstating population decline and species extinctions in order to exaggerate its case. Most recently we saw this in the tale of the “extinct” giant snail that wasn’t. Few would dispute that as human populations grow and land is developed and deforested animal populations will come under increasing pressure. But that 53 per cent figure looks about as trustworthy as those equally dubious claims by ecologists claiming that as many as 40,000 species go extinct every year. Really? Where are the bodies?

3. These are not solid scientific figures but extrapolations based on estimates, expressed as a modeled trend. The Global Living Planet Index (LPI)? Oh yeah? And what’s one of them when it’s at home? In order for us to take it seriously, we must first trust the accuracy of the raw data on individual species populations (dependent on what may be partial and limited field studies), second the way this data has been adjusted by the WWF to extrapolate a global trend. As we’ve seen with global warming, the opportunities for cherry-picking, confirmation bias and outright fraud are legion.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. 59 per cent of UK population are ‘village idiots’ thunders The Times
  2. Extinct snail ‘killed’ by climate change crawls back from the dead
  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

 

Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute? | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

Ed Miliband, the weird blobby egg creature with dark hair on top currently doing untold damage as Britain’s Energy and Climate Secretary, has declared war on Climate Sceptics.

According to the Observer:

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband.

If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. “There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,” he said. “Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk.”

Could the New Labour government’s zeal to impose this eco-fascist vision on Britain at any cost have anything to do with the curious case of the Information Commissioner who barked but didn’t bite?

Christopher Booker points up the mystery in his latest column:

There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?

I think we should be told. (As Private Eye would be asking were it remotely interested in investigating the AGW scandal which unfortunately, for some bizarre reason known only to its editor, it isn’t).

UPDATE: Climategate.com has been looking into this scandal and is similarly disgusted. It believes there may have been “willful nonfeasance or malfeasance by government officials.”

Related posts:

  1. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  2. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  3. Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’