Good morning to our regular media hounds sniffing around for tips – have we got a doozy for you!
Roger Pielke Sr. ;
The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.
Much more in the comments there – “As it stands, we are looking at a bladeless “Hockey Stick”, and for all intents and purposes at the falsification of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis for North America. Of particular note is that the Climate Audit piece indicates that GISS has erased the old [unadjusted] data, giving it the makings of an excercise in covering one’s tracks. The legality of this must be questionable given that we are dealing a federally funded agency. Astounding.”
(Climate Audit is currently down – I suspect in the same way SDA goes down when I post on Marc Emery’s cannibus cult…)
Update: My hunch was right. Climate Audit is under DOS attack.
Climate Audit:
Or as explained by commentor Chris Christner. “Congratulations Steve! On your own you’ve managed to reduce temperatures more than the Kyoto Protocol ever could!”
More here from Anthony Watts: “Here’s a story of scientific investigation and discovery I’m proud to have had a small part in.”
And here too.
Michelle Malkin has another roundup
It was hotter a million years ago.
So what?!?!?!
This whole issue is boring me to death, even considering how much leftists has humiliated themselves with it…
Rewriting history, thats not important is it?
Wow! It looks like they’ve found that missing 1/2 degree!!!
Does this mean that Al Gore has to give back the $100 million he reportedly earned flogging AIT ??
I see where NEWSREEK is trying to make the skeptics look like their uner the pay of certian buisnesses just like any left-wing liberal news rag but this is the news rag that brought up the fake story of the flushed koran FLUSH NEWSREEK
“I see where NEWSREEK is trying to make the skeptics look like their uner the pay of certian buisnesses just like any left-wing liberal news rag…”
What’s wrong with Newsweek stating the truth? Don’t you like facts?
Sir, is this the Newsweek article your talking about?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/
It’s quite an interesting article, I look forward to hearing an insightful and responsive reply from you about the article in question.
As you can tell, I dislike to preview when I write…
Am I correct in saying that the adjusted numbers above do not take into account the poorly located stations – stations that have had their temperature reading integrity compromised by the encroachment of air-conditioning radiators and concrete or paved surfaces, etc. placed within close proximity of them in recent years (i.e. within the last 30 years)?
If so then it is quite possible that the years 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006 should fall even further.
Something that I haven’t heard discussed is the possibility that operator bias is impacting the readings in recent years now that Global Warming is in vogue. Are all of the stations collecting data now using electronic readers or are some (or many) of them still being read manually – i.e. with the human eye as I used to do it 20 years ago. It the latter method is still used then I think quite likely that the readers are favourably disposed to AGW theories and thus are likely to read ‘high’ (i.e. round up rather than down) when looking at the mercury miniscus.
Am I correct in saying that the adjusted numbers above do not take into account the poorly located stations – stations that have had their temperature reading integrity compromised by the encroachment of air-conditioning radiators and concrete or paved surfaces, etc. placed within close proximity of them in recent years (i.e. within the last 30 years)?
If so then it is quite possible that the years 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006 should fall even further.
Something that I haven’t heard discussed is the possibility that operator bias is impacting the readings in recent years now that Global Warming is in vogue. Are all of the stations collecting data now using electronic readers or are some (or many) of them still being read manually – i.e. with the human eye as I used to do it 20 years ago. It the latter method is still used then I think quite likely that the readers are favourably disposed to AGW theories and thus are likely to read ‘high’ (i.e. round up rather than down) when looking at the mercury miniscus.
Am I correct in saying that the adjusted numbers above do not take into account the poorly located stations – stations that have had their temperature reading integrity compromised by the encroachment of air-conditioning radiators and concrete or paved surfaces, etc. placed within close proximity of them in recent years (i.e. within the last 30 years)?
If so then it is quite possible that the years 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006 should fall even further.
Something that I haven’t heard discussed is the possibility that operator bias is impacting the readings in recent years now that Global Warming is in vogue. Are all of the stations collecting data now using electronic readers or are some (or many) of them still being read manually – i.e. with the human eye as I used to do it 20 years ago. It the latter method is still used then I think quite likely that the readers are favourably disposed to AGW theories and thus are likely to read ‘high’ (i.e. round up rather than down) when looking at the mercury miniscus.
Get bent, alby. Really. Once you’re done your undergrad work you’ll have a few years before mandatory retirement when you hope and dream you can make a few bucks off of global warming.
It’s the truth. Don’t you like facts?
Not so fast.
First of all this data is based on air temperatures taken on only 2% of the earth’s surface. Secondly, there is no doubt the 30s was a warm decade, but the numbers that are being quoted are made up of the relative average annual temps compared with the average of past recorded temps. Under these conditions it’s not difficult to get the 1934 results showing an average temp increase of 1.24 deg average when of the previous 53 years of recorded temperatures, 32 of those years or 60% were below average. One only needs to look at the 5-year mean of .44 deg to see that 1934 wasn’t anything exceptional.
The data used as stated above is nothing more than the usual cherry picking the data to acquire a desired outcome. Under these conditions, the warming becomes hidden in the averages, and even though it is being hidden, the warming is still there.
When we take a look at the years subsequent to 1934, we see that only 28 of those 72 years or 38% were below average temps. In the past 30 years we see that average below normal temps number drops to only 30%. It’s the decrease in below normal temp and the increase in above normal temp anomalies that indicate the earth is warming. What we need to look at is the global absolute average annual temperatures compared with historical global absolute average annual temperature readings to see the problem.
However these people try to cloud the issue by attempting to skew the facts, they can’t hide what is really happening to the earth. They can’t cloud issues like early springs or melting glaciers. Rising sea levels or more frequent el Ninos can’t be hidden in numbers. It’s real people, get used to it, the earth is warming up.
Get ready. The North Korean-style PR firm, employed by David Suzuki, which runs the absurd website, Desmogblog.com, will shrilly announce that they have “debunked” this story in 5 … 4 … 3 …
Take that you Global Warming denierafieralists.
The earth has had two ice ages….I assume we are still warming up from those and whatever else happened millions of years ago.
The BS that humans are causing the warming is based on self-centered human arrogance and apparently, incompetence on the part of government funded climate researchers.
Pollution and global climate change are two completely different issues. Is there too much pollution?, of course. Is the climate changing up and down and all around on the mother ship, sure. It always has and always will. Can we do a dam thing about it except hang on for the ride, I doubt it.
“Get bent, alby. Really. Once you’re done your undergrad work you’ll have a few years before mandatory retirement when you hope and dream you can make a few bucks off of global warming.
It’s the truth. Don’t you like facts?
Posted by: Yukon Gold at August 9, 2007 1:41 AM”
I’ll have about 20 years to work, but really seeing that global warming is a fact, what is wrong with making it your livelihood by helping people to go green? If you know it’s happening why not make money of of it? It’s not a crime to make money off of global warming, but there is a big problem with investing large sums of cash trying to convince people a threat doesn’t exist, when it does in order to get rich.
Did you catch this link?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm
If any conclusion at all can be drawn from the whole “global warming” fiasco, it’s that jumping to conclusions based on limited or disputed data and ignoring scientific method in favor of ideological or moral fervor leads to ridicule and/or disaster. Reason and skepticism first.
I’me skeptical about this whole reason thing.
Syncro
Hey SDA’ers, what’s it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don’t actually deny it either.
So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to “discover” contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep. Don’t you ever ask yourselves, “Hey, I wonder what ExxonMobil might have to gain from clouding the global warming issue in paralyzing uncertainty”?
How can you be so sure that you’re on the side of truth? Because you always like what you hear from them? Shouldn’t that tell you something?
Let the ad hominem replies begin!
Kinsella,your are pathetic.
h.ryan., your spelling sucks.
“If you know it’s happening why not make money of of it? It’s not a crime to make money off of global warming, but there is a big problem with investing large sums of cash trying to convince people a threat doesn’t exist, when it does in order to get rich” At least the truth has spewed from the moonbat’s keyboard. All of his posturing and diatribe is due to naked self interest. Any objectivity you might have had, is completely gone. Do us all a favor, and scoot over to the leftoid, pencil necked, trough wallower blogs.
kingstontard, so now you don’t believe in free enterprise, entrepreneurship, (ethical) capitalism, etc.? What kind of conservative are you? What’s your problem with, say, these kids?
Commerce based on lies is, well, you know, FRAUD!
Yeah, kingstontard, founding a company that helps provide clients with “green, alternative engineering solutions in an effort to make buildings more eco-friendly and energy efficient” is such a fraud. Because making energy consumption more efficient is a lie in that, what, it’s not physically possible? Not a good idea in itself?
Saving money on energy is good. Lying about global warming is bad. I have spent over 20 grand in the last 3 years updating my buildings. It was done for financial reasons, with no government subsidies. Naked self interest, but in my case, without the trough wallowing.
Global Warming:
Fake, but true.
“So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to “discover” contrarian research evidence”
So 10 grand can motivate a scientist to through away their scientific objectivity, and bow to the almight dollar, but the MILLIONS of dollars spent each year on global warming research can’t?!
Ummmmmm…Smoke. Go check out fruitflies site and see who some of that foundation’s sponsors are. Guess “Big Oil” wants it both ways!!
First of all this data is based on air temperatures taken on only 2% of the earth’s surface.
In the past 30 years we see that average below normal temps number drops to only 30%. It’s the decrease in below normal temp and the increase in above normal temp anomalies that indicate the earth is warming.
Err albatros39a make up your mind if the temps are too high the earth is warming and if they are low it’s only 2%????
🙂
And these above average years how many of them are near asphalt or air conditioners.
Fact is no one measures 100% of the earth because no one sits 100k west of Vancouver island measuring the temperature.
Satellite’s do but somehow they were AWOL last time the IPCC went around shilling for handouts.
And Smoke, as you said at 4:37 AM “Let the ad hominem replies begin!” then 2 posts later you say “h.ryan., your spelling sucks.
Posted by: Smoke at August 9, 2007 5:51 AM ”
Ummmmm….forgetting the “and Mirrors” after your nick?
Hmmmmmm back to the future part 2.
The climate record is rescued from leftbot revisionist propagandists and re established to conform with the general historic record.
I wondered how the heatwave/drought of the 30s that wiped out midwest farmers, suddenly took a back seat to the mid 80s heat wave which I lived through and obviously missed. 😉
Well, Justthinkin, h.ryan. did in fact make a spelling error in his/her 4-word personal attack reply to my comment, so my reply isn’t without merit.
Did you notice that immediately after I wrote “Let the ad hominem replies begin,” h.ryan. called me pathetic? Did I call that or what?
Justthinkin: Ummmmmm…Smoke. Go check out fruitflies site and see who some of that foundation’s sponsors are. Guess “Big Oil” wants it both ways!!
Corporations thrive by pursuing self-interests. Given current realities in which environmental issues are near the top of everyone’s policy agendas, it’s no surprise that they’re hedging their bets, playing both fields, investing some money in alternative energy tech, green-washing, etc. It’s not the corporate money that’s a problem, it’s what the recipient then does with it.
Think of it this way. Say Kate accepted a bag of cash from the LPC, and then tomorrow a post appeared on SDA musing on whether Dion might not be so bad after all. Doesn’t look good, does it? Now say Kate accepted a bag of cash from the LPC, and then continued to say what she’s been saying all along, that Dion would make a crap PM. Now doesn’t that suggest integrity of one’s convictions?
Ditto with taking Big Oil money and then saying that climate change is a sham and that the status quo is tickety-boo? Doesn’t look good either, does it? But taking Bil Oil money and then continuing to say what you’ve been saying for the past two or three decades (even back when environmentalism was on nobody’s radar), that Big Oil is a major contributor to the problem and must fundamentally change its core business practises? Doesn’t that also suggest integrity of one’s convictions?
“So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to “discover” contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep.”
The research evidence cited in this post is provided by GISS.
In the future, please read the posts before commenting on them.
Kudos to Steve for checking the data. Also, kudos to Hansen and the GISS team for accepting the correction and posting it so quickly.
WOW . . Global Cooling Hits California
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
DrWright: You said “Satellite’s do but somehow they were AWOL last time the IPCC went around shilling for handouts.”
This is not correct. The IPCC does use and reference the satellite data.
Regards,
John
Kate: The research evidence cited in this post is provided by GISS.
Ahh, but the subsequent interpretation of its significance (and the inevitable hyperbolic spin among bloggers — “I knew it! Proof that climate change is a complete scam!!! I hate Gore! This is huge–HUUUUUUGGGE–I tells ya!!!”) are not. Look for this to be rehashed without proper context at, say, the next FCPP-sponsored climate change conference.
It will be dimsissed as technical and small adjustment that doesnt effect the larger message of GW and the underlying cause of CO2
Thats how it will be spun….embrace and minimize.
There will be a quick reaction to this as well, as befits a well organized political machine, which at the end of the day all of this is.
They will find a proxy, not the putative leader, to go out and attack. It wont even be Hansen, who will play good cop on this, as it was his mistake.
This is high stakes my friends. This on its own does nothing other than force the AGW crowd to another plank. At some point someone will notice that they really are unable to make predictions that come true, use wonky data and are constatntly adjusting models.
At some point this will come crashing down. It may be the Chinese and Indians who do it. Previously they had incentive to agree because it would slow down US progress but now that theya re to be included, they will join the skeptic crowd in a big way.
Quite frankly the Chinese and Indians should work on pollution not CO2.
“Corporations thrive by pursuing self-interests”
Um – Smokey, sweetie – The Fruit Fly Guy and the Failed Presidential Candidate both have made MILLIONS off idiots like you who somehow think that what is happening today had NEVER happened before.
So who is pursuing their self-interests.
When you finally grow up and realize that you have been taken hook, line and sinker – come back and discuss things intelligently. Until then go blow “smoke” with all the other idiots who think that somehow the Climate, George Bush and Stephan Harper are the cause of all the bad in the world.
albatross – might I suggest, as you are working your way through your undergrad degree, that you take a course in logic and critical thinking. You need to know the difference between ‘all’ and ‘some’, and various informal fallacies such as false analogies.
Smoke – no-one is denying the reality of climate change. The universe and our planet are not static but dynamic and our planet has seen massive climate changes, including phases of cooling and warming. What many of us deny is AGW.
Such reductionism is ‘bad science’. Furthermore, when the data base is so readily confronted and critiqued, one must come to the conclusion that the data base is insufficient and open to debate.
In my view, AGW is utterly and totally invalid as science; it exists in the West for two basic reasons. The first is the existencein the West and only in the West, of the cultural notion of ‘human sin and guilt’ that makes man responsible for evil. The second is the intellectual sophistry of the left of the West, filling smokey cafe-safe rants on the nirvana of communism, socialism.
So, the West has embraced AGW, a utopian idealogy that is grounded in this notion of human sin, coloured by an emotional threat of an apocalyptic finale, unless one recants, renounces one’s sin – and, heh – moves into socialism and away from the Evil Satan of Private Big Business Corporations.
The script of AGW is so ‘cheesy’, it fits right in with a Hollywood thriller – and, Al Gore’s Oscar shows this to us.
Pollution is a different issue – and, we can do a great deal to deal with pollution. It is, however, an uphill battle, as a great deal of pollution rests with the individual – and when one sees the litter left by all our ‘climate caring population’ as they wander through the streets or go to their climate conferences – one is aware of this dichotomy between ‘idea’ and ‘action’.
But AGW? It’s a Hollywood movie, not fact.
So Smoke….you ARE admitting you are Kinsella in drag….”Did you notice that immediately after I wrote “Let the ad hominem replies begin,” h.ryan. called me pathetic? Did I call that or what?
Posted by: Smoke at August 9, 2007 8:47 AM ”
If that’s the case,you are more than pathetic. Afraid to use your true name here? Most of us here(not all I will admit) only tend to ad hominem when attacked. Why don’t you go ask Cherniak why he figures the French is an ethinicity,instead of somebody from that country? Facts? What facts?
Smoke,
The government is pro-AGW. So does that mean the work of anyone who takes grant money from the government is biased and invalid?
Of course you don’t think so. If the bias is yours, you don’t think it biased.
Suzuki and Gore both have oil funding. Does that invalidate everything they say?
Of course you don’t thinks so. You only accuse other of bias when they don’t agree with you.
If money renders research invalid, you can throw out all research.
If oil money in particular is a problem, why do you put stock in Gore and Suzuki?
You seem not to see the hypocrisy of your stance and your attacks.
Further, the BS line you pulled out of your backside about all the “deniers” (and that’s an ad hominem attack itself) all being the in the pocket of big oil and that being “fact” that is “well documented” is horsesh**.
What is well documented is the attacks from propagandist liars who slander anyone who dares question the cult’s sacred global warming teachings. That many of the people who have been accused of being in the pocket of big oil have come out and said that they’ve never taken money from big oil doesn’t seem to change the minds of zealots and liars. They continue their lies and continue their slander even though they know damn well that not all scientists who disagree with the cult are minions of Karl Rove and Exxon.
What IS well documented is the attacks, harassment, firings and academic oppression (including not hiring, denying tenure, denying grant money, etc.) to anyone who doesn’t tow the GW party line. That a small percentage of GW sceptics resort to taking oil money to continue their research says more about the broken peer review system with it’s dogmatic demands for conformity than it does about the scientists. It also says a lot about the bias and validity of the people who are pro-GW. The government funded scientists MUST be pro-GW or they lose their funding. But that doesn’t bias their research. Right hypocrites? Oh, no! If government funding is only available to those who agree with the cult, that isn’t proof of bias but proof the “system is working” in the minds of logically challenged leftards.
When the pro-GW set gets their heads out of their backsides and finally concedes that they were frauds and liars and propagandists and not scientists, I hope they go to jail for that fraud. Taking public money and lying to get it is a crime.
albatross:
Seems like you’ve missed the point.
“The data used as stated above is nothing more than the usual cherry picking the data to acquire a desired outcome.”
If you actually read the post, you would notice the fact that data used to ‘prove’ global warming has had to be changed because of the audit of surface stations that don’t meet the GISS requirements being included. If you go have a look at surfacestations.com you’ll see all sorts of USHCN stations that are mounted over top charcoal barbecues, next to buildings, in asphalt parking lots and next to air conditioning compressors. What you should be getting out of the post is that another leg under the AGW argument is being knocked out because the air temperature data is being skewed by unscientific measurements.
“However these people try to cloud the issue by attempting to skew the facts, they can’t hide what is really happening to the earth. They can’t cloud issues like early springs or melting glaciers. Rising sea levels or more frequent el Ninos can’t be hidden in numbers. It’s real people, get used to it, the earth is warming up.”
On this, perhaps you haven’t been reading the news of late. The IPCC itself has admitted that the sea is not rising as much as they thought it would previously. If you dig a little deeper, all of your arguments have been recently refuted. The glaciers aren’t melting as much as thought, Kilimanjaro glacier is melting because of local deforestation. Seems like the science is once again not backing up the AGW argument once again. Other evidence suggests that the heating and cooling of the earth has more to do with the solar cycles than it does carbon dioxide. Imagine that, the sun heating the earth, since Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all seem to have warming trends and have no coal fired power or SUVs perhaps the science isn’t as settled as the global warming crowd is saying it is!
So universities, government, etc tend to fund pro GW scientists, and will pressure deniers. Oil companies are funding scientists both claiming, and denying CO2 GW.
Does this mean that evil corporations are more honest & balanced than government and universities? Uh oh. Heads might explode.
too bad billions will be wasted on this before the MSM dreams up the next scare. global cooling, nuclear winter, y2k , global warming,
the change focus and enemies from decade to decade sounds so much like the pronouncements of “1984” is actually frightening to think how prophetic the book was.
Heres a prophecy, in 10 years everyone will be driving cars, the highways will be in disrepair, health care will be underfunded (critics say) ,
eating too much will make you fat and there will still be government employees.
How much does it cost to put gubmint employee and millionaire Dave Suzuki’s giant shaggy head on every single freakin billboard in Canada promoting solid science like “Remember, turn out the lights”?
That commie’s everywhere.
One can only hope that the trough will be reduced enough so that by the time a certain moonbat graduates there is no slop left for him to wallow in. One thing I have noticed is that the majority of dr fruit fly’s merry band of idiots have a vested interest in promoting the myth of global cooling/global warming/climate change. The majority of deniers, on the other hand, just want the government idiots off our backs.
other than the commercials paid for by you and I ,what has happened to Dr. Bono Suzuki, he doesnt go around on his megabus tour anymore?
can anyone go out to quadra island and get a picture of the “habitat for humility” that he lives in ? include the pulpit at the front where he preaches to the flock.
Dr. Fruitfly ? are you out there?