The wheels continue to fall of the global warming climate change wagon.
First, we have this:
A new report points to a sharp reduction of weather stations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in cooler locations around the world since 1990. Could that be why global temps have seen a steady rise over the last 20 years?
Why? Ask yourself that question. Why would NOAA reduce the amount of weather stations in cooler locations since 1990? I’m willing to bet people like Al Gore know why.
The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as it was originally presented. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data, where the three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still have not been released. Other data simply never seem to have existed or cannot be provided to other scientists.
False claims? No! Really? What have I been saying for years? And yet people like Rob continued to mock me. Funny, really. Especially considering Rob’s head has been in the sand and refuses to come forward and explain all of this. And he’s a scientist, ladies and gentleman … well, so he says. Oh Rob? You there?
But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that’s right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
Absolutely staggering. If global warming climate change isn’t one of the biggest con jobs in modern scientific history, then I don’t know what is.
D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.
Well, you know what the left wing moonbats think. Population reduction to save the planet. That is, everyone dies except them (of course).
Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”
How convenient. No manipulation to fit the agenda there, right? Of course not.
D’Aleo and Watts also criticize how these data adjustments are often unexplained or poorly documented. In one case involving James Hansen at NASA a Freedom of Information Act request has been unanswered for over two years.
Unanswered? No way! I’m sure they’re all just too busy to respond to the request.
The report details other fascinating temperature biases. For example, Siberia has experienced one the greatest increases in recorded warming. A large drop in the number of stations and the some missing data can explain part of the change, but apparently during the Soviet-era areas with lower recorded temperatures received more fuel and money, creating a real incentive for weather stations to lie.
The D’Aleo and Watts’ report also helps answer some puzzling questions about the report. One of the major ones questions has been the divergence in temperature data recorded by satellites in space and down here on the ground. That difference was very small when satellites first started being used during the 1980s but has grown over time, with ground observations showing a rise in temperature relative to the satellite data. The urban warming effect may also explain why land warming has between so much greater than ocean warming.
All three terrestrial global-temperature datasets (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and University of East Anglia) really rely on the same measures of surface temperatures. These three sources do not provide independent measures of how the world’s temperatures have changed over time. The relatively small differences that do arise from these three institutions result from how they adjust the raw data.
Flawed data leads to flawed conclusions. Whether these errors were made on purpose or by accident ultimately doesn’t matter. Especially with tens of trillions of dollars at stake, science should be more transparent than this. But we can only draw one conclusion: the studies based on that data, no matter the number, are ultimately unreliable.
Once again, for those of you who missed what I’ve been saying for years: Global warming climate change is one of the biggest scientific deceptions ever created. It’s nothing more than a money making scam for the scientists and world leaders alike. Scientists love grant money, and what better way to receive it? World leaders love the political power and money and what better scam is there to grab it?
And then we have this:
The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the last few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as originally claimed. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data [1], where the three most relied-on data series [2] used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still not been released. Other information indicates that data have been systematically biased to produce a rise in measured temperatures [3] when actual temperatures were falling or flat.
Take some of the false claims in the 2007 IPCC report.
– The IPCC claims that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035. The forecast was based on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999, and the Indian glaciologist who was interviewed, Syed Hasnain, says that he was misquoted [4], indeed he had provide no date. Professor Hasnain discovered the mistake in 2008 when he read the IPCC’s published report, but he said: “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report. . . . My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”
Even more disturbingly, Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s climate chief, first denied that he knew about the error before the Copenhagen global warming conference. He only admitted [5] that he knew about it before the conference when a writer for the journal Science, Pallava Bagla, pointed to email correspondence that he had with Pachauri last fall.
There’s a real scientist for you,
– The IPCC warned that because of global warming the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.” [6] They cited one study to support their claim, but when the research was published in 2008, after the IPCC report was released, the study noted: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”
– The IPCC warned that up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming, but the sole source for that claim was a non-refereed report authored by two people who the Sunday Times of London [7] referred to as “two green activists,” one of them with the World Wildlife Fund.
In other words, moonbat environmentalists. If it were up to them, we’d all be living in caves, while at the same time not being allowed to make a campfire to keep warm.
– The IPCC even got wrong the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level. The report claims that the percent is 55 percent, when the right number is 26 percent.
On February 3rd, Mr. Pachauri however defended the UN’s IPCC [8] report by saying that the critics “are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply [asbestos] to their faces every day.” While Pachauri admits that the IPCC was inaccurate about the Himalayan glaciers melting, he claimed that the attacks were motivated by “business interests” who “spread a lot of disinformation.”
Finally, it should be noted that Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office, which enforces that country’s freedom of information act regulations, has come to some conclusions regarding Climategate. The ICO found that the University of East Anglia breached violated British law by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The UK Daily Mail reports [9] that “the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.” Out of 105 freedom of information requests [9], Professor Phil Jones, who headed the university’s Climate Research Unit, only complied with 10 requests.
Only 10 out of 105? Why did the University of East Anglia violate such freedom of information act regulations? What are they hiding? Like I said before, if the science behind global warming climate change is so sound, why not be absolutely forthcoming when it comes to requests for information?
For too long global warming proponents have claimed that their claims can’t be questioned. Science should be more transparent than this. But relying on misreported news stories and white papers put out by non-scientists from advocacy cases isn’t science. Why these climate temperature data has been hidden and why researchers won’t answer questions on adjustments that they have made has become quite troubling. In this age of computers and website, there is no excuse for hiding data.
The science isn’t transparent at all because it’s not based on science! It’s all based on an agenda, nothing more, nothing less. And I am glad the world is waking up to the colossal deception know as global warming climate change.
Oh Al? Al? Are you there, Al? Hello, Al?
Recent Comments