Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (36)
It’s the tenth anniversary next week of the 2009 Climategate email dump that exposed top climate scientists’ chicanery and subversion of science – and did so in their own words and out of their own mouths, or keyboards. I’ll list a few emails-of-infamy shortly, but first some background.
For the three years before Climategate, the climate crowd was ascendant with its pseudo-narrative of “settled science”. Al Gore’s error-riddled propaganda movie Inconvenient Truth of 2006 had swept the Western world and its readily-traduced schoolkids. In 2007 Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize. In late 2008 Barack Obama won the White House, proclaiming in his modest way, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
The Climategate emails hit the blogosphere just a month before the Copenhagen summit was scheduled to lock Western countries into Kyoto Mark 2, a legally-binding commitment to renewables from 2012. Climategate destroyed warmists’ moral high ground and reinforced the natural reluctance of most governments to up-end their economies with emission controls. The Copenhagen circus fell apart, resolving merely to “take note” of the exhortations to action by Obama and like-minded leaders.
The mainstream media strove to ignore and bury the Climategate revelations. The climate establishment ran half a dozen inquiries with limited briefs and ludicrous lack of rigour, all of which purported to clear the climate scientists of wrong-doing.[1] But even today, ten years after, scientists faithful to their calling and disciplines can only shudder at what Climategate revealed. Those who subverted the scientific method were not fringe players but at the pinnacle. They were doing the archetypal studies “proving” catastrophic human-caused catastrophic warming (CAGW) and shaping the content and messaging in the six-yearly reports of the IPCC.
The hacked (or otherwise revealed) email archive spanning the prior decade was stored by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit[2]. The CRU co-compiled the HadCRUT global temperature series, along with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. This data set charting alleged global warming in fractions of a degree was a key input to the climate computer models forecasting doomladen heat for this century. (The model forecasts continue to exceed actual measured warming). Based on these dud modelled forecasts, the West is now spending $US1.5 trillion a year in quest of zero CO2 emissions.
Today, anyone questioning this colossal enterprise is told to “respect the science”. Based on the Climategate emails released in 2009, 2011 and 2013, I’d rather respect the Mafia, who at least don’t claim to be saving the planet. For example, today we’re told that warming of 2degC above pre-industrial level is some sort of a tipping point of doom. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, emailed on September 6, 2007, that the supposed 2-degree limit was “plucked out of thin air”, a throwaway line in an early 1990s paper from the catastrophists at the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute.
Now for the emails. We journos love a local angle, and here’s one – the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris worked for four years to de-bug and properly document a CRU data base “TS 2.1” of global stations recording monthly temperatures.
One input was from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with its frequent adjustments that result in a greater warming trend (think Rutherglen and Darwin). Harry’s comments in a 200-page logging of notes:
What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates… something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! … getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. So many new stations have been introduced, so many false references … so many changes that aren’t documented … I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was…Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight…!
What else did Harry Harris mention? Perhaps science-respecting Dr Ross Garnaut (Q&A on November 11) could get his head around this lot (emphasis added):
OH F**K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases … Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it … This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!! … So, uhhhh what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!! … Unbelievable — even here the conventions have not been followed. It’s botch after botch after botch …Where is the documentation to explain all this?! … It’s halfway through April and I’m still working on it. This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek … Oh bugger. What the HELL is going on?!.. Oh GOD if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite!! .,. Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! … So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage…
Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately — meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!! … What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have 🙂 … [My attempted corrections] will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ’em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.”
That was then. How’s things today?
In 2015 Prime Minister Tony Abbott set in train an audit of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature adjustments that increased Australia’s apparent warming, but one of the first moves of his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, was to scuttle that audit. Of equal significance is that late last year, Melbourne scientist Dr John McLean published the first-ever audit of Britain’s HADCRUT4 temperature data set and commented,
It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student … Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.
For example, he found that for two years the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were derived from just one site in Indonesia, and on two occasions the average December temperature at an airport on tropical St Kitts in the Caribbean was reported at zero degrees. The inaccuracies in the data record are so bad, McLean believes, that it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen – probably about 0.4degC in 70 years, not the 0.6degC claimed.
Subverting peer review
Climategate showed how warmist scientists gamed the peer review process to ensure a monopoly for their views. When two papers contrary to their ‘consensus’ were published, CRU director Phil Jones and his circle pulled out all stops to get the editor sacked and prevent such papers being considered by the IPCC. Jones, 8 July 2004:
…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, leading climate scientist] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
US colleague Dr Michael Mann (author of the influential-but-wrong Hockey Stick graph of the past 1000 years’ temperature), July 3, 2003:
It seems clear we have to go above [the sceptic author Chris de Freitas] … I think that the community should, as Mike H [warmist scientist] has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels –reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.
Concerning another sceptic scientist, Steve McIntyre (who used his superior statistical skills to refute Mann’s work), Mann wrote, in August 2007,
I have been talking [with] folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose [him].
Restricting and adjusting data
CRU director Jones destroyed emails subject to Freedom of Information requests and urged colleagues to do the same. Some of the emails could have exposed improper manipulation of IPCC processes. In 2004 Jones refused a sceptic’s request for his source data:
…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?
He had good reason to conceal his data. Perhaps here’s why:
# Jones, April 15, 2009: For much of the SH [Southern Hemisphere] between 40 and 60 [degrees] S[outh] the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.
# Jones, November 10, 2009: For the 1940-1960 period if the SSTs [sea surface temperatures] were adjusted they would look much better
# Scientist Dr Tom Wigley, then with the US Government, to Jones September 28, 2008, urging more adjusting: …If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip. So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip… It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip’.
# From Jones’ CRU colleague Dr Tim Osborn, December 20, 2006: Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were…
# Jones in November 2007 mentioned research malpractice allegations against some climate people in the US and Europe…I reckon only a few in the climate field know the full extent of what is going on behind the scenes in climate science. The Nobel Peace prize will certainly help, but some skeptics are redoubling their efforts.
# Jones’s University of East Anglia colleague Anthony Footitt, June 25, 2009: I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really makes us – UEA as a whole – look like a bunch of amateurs
Hiding the decline
On November 16, 1999, Jones welcomed and had re-used professionally a “trick” in a Nature article involving secret switching from tree-ring proxy temperature data to actual data. This covered up that tree-rings ceased to suggest rising temperature after 1960. That would have invalidated Mann’s tree-ring-based temperature chronologies for earlier centuries.
Jones: I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.
Scientist Tom Wigley points out flaws in Mann’s own research:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.
UK climate researcher Douglas Maraun:
How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
The IPCC exposed
UK Met Office’s Peter Thorne, concerning work on the IPCC’s 2007 fourth report:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Jones admits the political bias in the IPCC’s all-important Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):
He says he’ll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn’t as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured him they were not. The SPM [Summary for Policy Makers] may be, but not the chapters.
IPCC coordinating lead author Jonathan Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out [of IPCC reports].
Need it be said that leaving out inconvenient stuff is anathema to real, genuine, principled science?
Warmist Mike Hulme agrees that
the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment … There are not that many ‘facts’ about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal
From climate scientist Giorgi Filippo, who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports:
I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also un- reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes
Email 5286 from scientist Hans von Storch:
We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.”
Also from von Storch:
The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed
Scientist Richard Somerville, 2004:
We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.
Warmist Kevin Trenberth:
We are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter
Michael Mann, 2006:
We certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do.
Jones’ CRU was meant to provide part of the gold-standard science in the IPCC reports. Sadly, it lost or destroyed massive raw data from global temperature stations, admitting on its website in 2011,“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” [I’ve now been alerted that Jones only had and lost copies of the raw data; the originals remain at their sources].
Warmist Keith Briffa:
It seems we got the balance between realism and hype about right
In light of all the above admissions of lost data, mangled data, twisted data and the stated intentions of the Climategate correspondents to produce work that confirmed warmist preconceptions, there is a delicious irony to the lament of Phil Jones in 2008
Why can’t people just accept that the IPCC is right!!
Miscellaneous mayhem
# University of East Anglia’s Mike Hulme: I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in.
# Michael Mann: It would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘Medieval Warming Period’. His Hockey Stick did just that. The medieval warming remains an embarrassment to climate scientists, since it is natural rather than CO2-related.
# Milind Kandlikar, 2004: Tuning [of models] may be a way to fudge the physics.
In November 2007: UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, perhaps actually believing what he was saying on the strength of the guff being fed to him, suggested CO2 might cause sea levels to rise six meters in 10 years — that is, by 2017!
Needless to say, universities have showered climate guys with honors. IPCC author Ben Santer agreed with honors for Jones and Wigley: “Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our field” and the pair “deserve medals as big as soup plates”, he wrote, October 8, 2009.
After Climategate
Climategate’s influence on the public debate was fleeting. But now groups like Tim Flannery’s Climate Council persuade many citizens that any weather drama or fire is proof of global warming.[3] A steady stream of younger scientists, fuelled by propaganda from their earliest years in high school and locked onto their career rewards at “woke” universities for adhering to the warmist party line, is continuing the tradition of shoddy climate scholarship. Meanwhile, non-conformers like reef expert Peter Ridd get sacked.
Call me an optimist, but I see warming extremists alienating voters with a panoply of far-left “social justice” issues attached to their climate narrative — causes that make Greenpeace seem traditionalist.
The debate about the many interpretations of the science has become esoteric compared with close-to-home arguments about fossil-fuel power versus renewables. While Climategate exposed dud science, ten years later the hot topic is the exposure of unfeasible electricity makeovers.
Tony Thomas’s hilarious history, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here
[1] “The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.”
[2] The still-unidentified Climategate “hacker” said his motive was to help divert useless trillions for renewables towards doing genuine good for the world’s poor.
[3] Warmist scientist Steve Schneider perceptively said: “A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars – too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn’t seem to cut it anymore with the MSM [mainstream media].”
Restriction of access to data would appear to be the hallmark of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate emergency ‘science’. Climategate is probably the best example, demonstrating how deep seated it has become. The case of Michael Mann and Timothy Ball is another. Mann sued Ball for defamation, and Ball rose to the challenge seeking discovery of Mann’s data and workings that had led to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph. When, after about 9 years, Mann failed to make discovery (note that he had previously managed to assert some form of intellectual property rights in order to keep them to himself) and the Court threw out his case, awarding costs to Ball. I read recently of another case where a ‘scientist’ refused to share his data ‘because you only want to use it to criticise what I have written’. The scientific method involves replication of people’s experiments and testing, by attempting to disprove them, of their theories. To do that, other scientists need to have access to the data. So science stands or falls on its data. I have been told that in some sciences it has become fashionable to have the article, with its graphs and conclusions, published in a reputable journal, while at the same time making the data available on a personal or departmental website. The behaviour of the warmist scientists is scandalously unscientific.
Scientists in my experience of them tend to be average to below average at politics, and the world’s atmosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere-biosphere complex is the most involved system we know about in the entire universe. But AGW treads on an awful lot of toes in the Vested Interests Casino. Scientists are beginners forced to play big-time at the High Rollers’ Table.
There was a British Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘Climategate’ which completely exonerated the Hadley scientists involved. Surprisingly, Tony Thomas neglected to mention that fact. Oh well, these things happen. Journos lead very busy lives. Things can so easily get overlooked, especially when your priority is to act as a mouthpiece for the fossil carbon establishment.
But Tony Thomas also highlights the reason why I pay no attention to temperature records. Ian Plimer did us all a favour by showing so convincingly in his book ‘Heaven + Earth’ how easily they can be disputed.
However, the Earth is itself a thermometer, whose ‘mercury’ is its one ocean. Satellite altimetry shows sea level to be rising at ~3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr (CSIRO), due to glacial and polar ice melt. That means that the Earth is warming, spelt W-A-R-M-I-N-G.
Links next.
1. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/uea/
2. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Very quick today, Ian. Of course the earth has been warming, relative to the little ice age or previous ice ages. The questions are: how much is anthropogenic; is it unusual, and is it dangerous?
As for “a British Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘Climategate’ which completely exonerated the Hadley scientists involved”, you have to be joking.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Warwick Hughes is the person Jones refused a sceptic’s request for his source data:
“…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?”
Warwick still runs a website, address as above.
The trollster yet again lies by omission:
>”There was a British Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘Climategate’ which completely exonerated the Hadley scientists involved”
The inquiry did this by refusing to examine any of the detail Tony Thomas refers to. Steve McIntyres website exhaustively listed all of this and has only been challenged with ad homs. So, lie upon lie. The HARRY_READ ME file was instrumental in the Waffle and Hunt decision to avoid independent analysis of BoM’s ACORN algorithms.
“Hiding the decline” (truncating tree ring data when it didn’t support the narrative and surreptitiously substituting modern temperature data) is even worse than Tony’s article lays out. Mann gave evidence in Congress *after* “Mike’s trick” was published that no one would mix the two databases (tree rings and thermometers) when he knew he’d already done that with full sneakiness.
Thanks ianl–but trying to find something wrong with it is exactly what scientists are meant to be doing!
Tezza (or whatever your real name is):
“As for ‘a British Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘Climategate’ which completely exonerated the Hadley scientists involved’, you have to be joking.”
Did you check out the British Parliament link before descent to your keyboard?
As I said, and the above confirms it. Temperatures can be disputed. But this rate of sea-level rise cannot have been going for so long, otherwise historians the world over from ancient tribes to Herodotus and onwards would have commented on it.
Thanks Ian MacD. Unfortunately my piece was getting long and I couldn’t go far into the detail of the 6 inquiries that ostensibly cleared the scientists. So instead in my fourth para I included two links and a footnote to critiques of the inquiries (see below, the links remain in the fourth para).
“The climate establishment ran half a dozen inquiries with limited briefs and ludicrous lack of rigour, all of which purported to clear the climate scientists of wrong-doing.[1] 1] “The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.” “
A few additional examples of the manipulation of temperature data:
a) The audit of the BOM mentioned by Tony grew out of a senate inquiry led by Cori Bernardi. This in turn was the result of diligent former BOM employees (I think Ken Stewart was on of them) that demonstrated the BOM’s new ACORN dataset had more than a thousand instances in which the daily minimum was GREATER than the maximum. The BOM had no choice bu to admit that it had used an algorithm to universally shave a few degrees from maximum daily temperatures in order to make the 30’s seem cooler.
b) After Turncoat rolled Abbott, the BOM brought in a hotshot from the UK that claimed the problem was that the BOM divulged too much of its data when requested.
c) Meteorologist Anthony Watts organised a group in the USA to visit all of the screens recording temperature and compare them with published standards. When the result was that most of them could not conform, NOAA reacted with the GHCN. [https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/weather_stations/ghcn/]
d) Tony Heller delved into the temperatures reported by NOAA and found that the raw data had been subjected to an algorithm which tweaked each recorded temperature with a multiplier derived from the Mona Loa CO2 measurement, so that it would look like temperatures were increasing at the same rate as atmospheric CO2.
The MSM repeat over and over that we live in a “warming” world. Some people are sufficiently daft as to swallow the propaganda and believe that to be the case. However, it is damned near summer and there is still new snow in the Alps. In North America about 40% of the potato crop has been destroyed by frost, and probably 50% of the corn harvest. The Great Lakes freeze over like they did in the 70’s. And people still insist the world is warming, just as people in the Dark Ages thought that sickness was due to evil spirits, witches, werewolves, and vampires.
There were two British enquiries – Muir Russel and Oxburgh. The Oxburgh enquiry was commissioned by the University of East Anglia, to which the CRU belongs, to examine the science.
In the event, however, the Oxburgh Panel of seven scientists, only some of whom were climatologists, produced a five page report which appeared to completely vindicate the CRU. The report does not include the panel’s Terms of Reference, it does not include any minutes of meetings, it does not include any records of interview and it does not include any detailed assessment of the eleven CRU publications it reviewed to show how they support the consensus view. In fact, Lord Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre that his terms of reference were verbal and that no written records were kept other than the final report.
The report claimed that it reviewed eleven CRU publications that were selected on the advice of the Royal Society and that CRU agreed that these represented a fair sample of the Unit’s output. Subsequent FOI action has revealed that the publications were actually selected by Phil Jones and that the Royal Society’s imprimatur came later. This list of publications did not include any that were the subject of the controversy or disputes detailed in the emails.
The report acknowledges that the panel spent fifteen person days of actual attendance at the CRU, either reviewing additional material or interviewing staff. Roughly two days on site for each member of the panel. The whole enquiry took three weeks.
They interviewed only Phil Jones and Keith Briffa. They did not interview anyone from the other side of the debate.
As an example of the paucity of this investigation, the report noted, at one point, that the ‘CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology.’ Nowhere in the report are these detailed questions and convincing answers described.
It then goes on to say ‘We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the CRU work but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU’.
That begs the question, what external criticisms did they examine; what specific findings did they make, other than that some were selective and uncharitable and; how could they say the science is sound without considering both sides of the case?
Oxburgh was a joke.
Just as the ABC is completely OUT OF CONTROL now that I’se-a-buttcrack has been given the reins, so to is the BOM. Observe:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/whopper-part-ii-look-what-the-bom-did-to-the-last-three-februarys-in-australia/
How do they make the “hottest summer evah”?
Cook the books is how.
If a company insisted on being self-audited and cooked the books this way, the executive would be in the crowbar hotel The taxpayers provide this outfit with millions, and this is the nonsense they provide for it.
Peter O’B:
You provide an excellent summary as to why going by temperatures, records thereof, etc opens up a huge field for endless disputation and smokescreen generation. That is why my only interest is in ice melt and sea-level rise as an indicator of what is going on.
This online journal is a bit like a racehorse that’s been nobbled. Nothing gives the game away on this site so much as its record of hostility to renewables.
Yet the sky is the limit for them, and when the fossil carbon finally runs out, they will be all our descendants will have recourse to. Yours, mine, ianl’s (or whatever his real name is’s), and all the other participants here.
Which is why fossil carbon IMHO should be conserved as far as possible for feedstock for the chemicals industry, (synthetic rubber, polythene for agricultural and domestic plumbing etc) and not blown in the manner of a pay-night millionaire or a wastrel heir.
I am aware that those who have acquired private rights of ownership and exploitation would disagree. As Lord Stern said: the greatest market failure ever, or words to that effect.
Meanwhile drought and resultant bushfires rage on. Nothing to do with AGW of course. Zilch, nada, nil. And freak snowstorms can’t have anything to do with increased atmospheric energy and cyclonic winds dragging cold air off the poles. Most likely all those airborne pigs are responsible. Flying pork everywhere these days.
Thinking that the oceans are the bulb of a thermometer is tantamount to thinking that carbon dioxide “traps heat”. So long as the BIG LIE is repeatedly bellowed from the MSM rooftops, there are people that believe such tosh.
While the datasets that conflate sublimation with sea level, the tide marks at the Isle of the Dead and Fort Denison prove that the goofy data regarding SLR is no more credible than the temperature.
Rant noted.
If the hypothesis is that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm, let’s use the process we call science:
The “warming” is just a furphy, a figment of the imagination, even though in that period of time CO 2concentration has gone from about 270 ppm to 410 ppm.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is DISPROVED! The entire CAGW meme is complete nonsense.
170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming
Author: Thomas K. Bjorklund, University of Houston, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Science
October16, 2019
Key Points
1. From 1850 to the present, the noise-corrected, average warming of the surface of the earth is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade.
2. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. Recent increases in surface temperatures reflect 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation climate pattern.
Abstract
This study investigates the relationships between surface temperatures from 1850 to the present and reported long-range temperature predictions of global warming. A crucial component of this analysis is the calculation of an estimate of the warming curve of the surface of the earth. The calculation removes errors in temperature measurements and fluctuations due to short-duration weather events from the recorded data. The results show the average rate of warming of the surface of earth for the past 170 years is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The perceived threat of excessive future global temperatures may stem from misinterpretation of 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern in the eastern Pacific Ocean. ENSO activity culminated in 2016 with the highest surface temperature anomaly ever recorded. The rate of warming of the earth’s surface has dropped 41 percent since 2006.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/14/170-years-of-earth-surface-temperature-data-show-no-evidence-of-significant-warming/
Does anyone remember the ‘acid rain’ scam? It was a warm-up (pun not intended) for ‘global warming’. Rupert Darwall’s book Green Tyranny traces ‘green’ politics back to Hitler. It will be fascinating to see how the green/industrial complex, and its leaders in the global elite, swing their argument around as temperatures begin to fall when the GSM begins to bite.
The acid rain scam was a test for the great ozone swindel.
The Montreal Protocol was just a dress rehearsal scam for the big show: the Kyoto Protocol.
All the while preparing the gullible public for the giant Paris scam .
Predictions are difficult; particularly when they are about the future. (And when they are just a pack of lies)
https://youtu.be/Y-mRJmfFjFE
Glad mention has been made of the Montreal Protocol. That was drafted up and signed in one helluvan unprecedented hurry because it was just possible that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from spray cans would damage the Earth’s ozone layer to such an extent that the whole biosphere would be under threat from uv radiation. Evidence-based predictions were made then, and acted upon. No more a ‘swindel’ (!) than breathalysing drink-drivers.
Rod Stuart probably owes his life to Montreal. Which is good, because it probably frees him up to do whatever he does best, instead of going to an early grave.
Oh, and Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs. All dogs and vegetarians should be purged.!
I know I’m not very clever but if all the ice at the North Pole melted wouldn’t the sea level drop? Water expands when it freezes so 1 kilogram of ice has a larger volume than 1 kilogram of water and ice floats on water. Also, if the temperature in the Antarctic is always below 0 degrees celcius, how can the ice melt?
So every kind of weather event and atmospheric condition we experience today is the result of AGW Ian? This makes AGW a theory that can never be disproved. Now that is theory worth espousing I say!
Dry, wet, hot, cold, floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes, bush fires it’s all the result of man using fossil fuels to improve his standard of living, reduce poverty and increase life expectancy. Let’s get back to the Dark Ages. Anything to make Ian happy I say.
Somebody has had way too much Koolaid. Use some logic instead.
The ozone hole never extends beyond Antarctica, and only appears in the winter, when there isn’t any sunlight.
Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere by sunlight. As soon as the sun comes back out over Antarctica, the ozone hole disappears. How would Australians get skin cancer from an ozone hole thousands of miles away during winter when the sun is low in the sky?
The ozone hole size varies tremendously from year to year, despite relatively steady levels of CFC’s in the atmosphere. It is quite clear that CFC’s are not the controlling factor.
The ozone hole scam was more than just an opportunity for government to tax and control, and another opportunity for scientists to imagine themselves saving the planet. It was an opportunity to see how a gullible public can be scammed effectively.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
“‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’
H. L. Mencken”
Yet despite that, people can readily be found who take the likes of Mencken with a shovelful of salt. Like for example, Joan Acocella: “H. L. Mencken, on the other hand, was a journalist, and so his opinions stand naked before us: his condemnation of democracy, his admiration for Germany (he opposed American entry into both world wars), his loathing of all idealists and reformers, including those ‘professional kikes’ who in the thirties went around complaining that Adolf Hitler wasn’t being nice to the Jews. Mencken grew up at the end of the nineteenth century, the days of social Darwinism. As he saw it, the poor deserved to be poor; the hanged had it coming. If they had been superior people, they would have had a superior fate. They might, for example, have been born into a prosperous bourgeois family, found immediately the work they were made for, pursued it joyfully for half a century, and kicked off each night at ten o’clock to go have a drink with the boys. That’s what he did. What was the matter with them?”
Given that, I dare say that Mencken saw Churchill’s warnings and increasing agitation over Adolf Hitler as just such a ‘hobgoblin’. Sometimes, the prudent course is to generate panic in the streets: if our leaders don’t, then an enemy sooner or later will.
PS: And the ozone issue went way beyond Antarctica. The ozone cover of the Earth is what makes all terrestrial life possible. Keeping spray-cans unchanged at the expense of losing the biosphere was seen in the UN as a poor deal. Most agreed.
If CFC’s had even the REMOTEST correlation with the Ozone hole, would it close up completely due to an SSW?
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-monitors-very-unusual-2019-ozone-hole
From your link:
“The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to ban the use of the main human-made ozone-depleting chemicals. Consequently, concentrations of these substances are declining, and we expect Antarctic ozone levels to return to pre-1980 values by 2060. This long-term expectation is not changed by this year’s very unusual situation.”
As Margaret Thatcher memorably said, “best to give the planet the benefit of any doubt.” Or words to that effect.
But I grant you, as time passes the life of a coal shill gets harder and harder.
“The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”
George Orwell
rod stuart: At last we can agree on something!
History is always subjective and ‘biased’, and don’t let anyone kid you that it ain’t. Of all human intellectual pursuits, science and mathematics have the greatest claim to pursuit of objective truth. But selection of topic and of area of research still operate.
To my knowledge, never since Darwin have scientists been under such attack from vested interests as the climatologists have been from the vested interest of fossil carbon.
The trollster’s silly, pointless rantings above are beyond rational discussion.
Instead, here is the contemporary view of an electronics engineer, a Cambridge Professor with impeccable credentials, with regard to “decarbonizing in 2 decades” using the Mickey Mice of renewabubbles:
https://www.thegwpf.org/prof-michael-kelly-energy-policy-needs-herds-of-unicorns/
Note that this paper actually examines the detailed reality. No straw men, no ad homs, no moral vanity, no noble cause corruption.
“The trollster’s silly, pointless rantings above are beyond rational discussion….
Note that this paper actually examines the detailed reality. No straw men, >B>no ad homs, no moral vanity, no noble cause corruption.
Nice little self-contradictory offering there from ‘ianl’ (or whatever his real name is.)
TAKE 2: No apologies to ‘ianl’ (or whatever his real name is.)
“The trollster’s silly, pointless rantings above are beyond rational discussion….
Note that this paper actually examines the detailed reality. No straw men, no ad homs, no moral vanity, no noble cause corruption.
Nice little self-contradictory offering there from ‘ianl’ (or whatever his real name is.)
The Doogle (cos that is what his name is) has become addicted to the sound of his own keyboard. Tiresome contrarian point scoring, seeking nay even craving attention. The Greta of QOL Can’t resist the ad hominem (Cant take it either). Oh to just have the sensible contributions.
Spot on Bwana Neusi.
Spot off, Bwana. I have never initiated ad-hom exchanges. Just ask eyn pyssant. And I am always ready to change my mind. It’s just that the coal-shills and AGW ‘skeptics’ I so often engage with on this curate’s egg of a site have never provided me with reason to.
“I have never initiated ad-hom exchanges. Just ask eyn pyssant”. Is that initiating an ad hom as I had not commented?
To All Commentators:
In future let’s keep the comments and information between the rational among us. If nobody comments or answers MacDougall it will drive him mad as we are the only ‘friends’ he has. How sad is that?
On another thread I said I would not comment anymore, but forgot to add that I meant about anything he wrote. When I answered Alice it set him off again with insults and ad homs.
What surprises me is that with his vast, almost infinite knowledge the MacDougall has never enlightened us by penning an article. As he has never answered the questions any of us have posed, is and always will be just a troublesome pustule willing to criticise and troll, but never able to put has case in an article we can peer review.
The troll commented 13x = 65% of all comments, but provided no enlightenment from his infinite knowledge.