Lies, Damn Lies and Climate Science
Discussion
Hansen's "coldest October figures" promoting MMGW shown up as glaring error
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
The world has never seen such freezing heat By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008 A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and
115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Then you remember how the Greens were jumping up and down after the El Nino high in the late 90s and you realise that it's actually far more genuine to look at the overall global cooling during the last decade, not just since 2007 when it has been very marked. The aim of that chicanery is to pin the whole lot on a moderate La Nina that ended in July. Risible.
MMGWT = giant zit on the pimply ass of junk science
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
The world has never seen such freezing heat By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008 A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and
115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Then you remember how the Greens were jumping up and down after the El Nino high in the late 90s and you realise that it's actually far more genuine to look at the overall global cooling during the last decade, not just since 2007 when it has been very marked. The aim of that chicanery is to pin the whole lot on a moderate La Nina that ended in July. Risible.
MMGWT = giant zit on the pimply ass of junk science
Problem is. No-one who matters is listening. MMGW is a money-earner for governements and businesss alike.
Need to get 500,000 people down to Whitehall to throw rocks at the Pigs before anything will happen. Which brings up the second problem. That it's only decent middle-clas folk who are listening to the truth. And they don't do rock-throwing (more's the pity).
So without a political riot-squad, what are you going to do about it?
Need to get 500,000 people down to Whitehall to throw rocks at the Pigs before anything will happen. Which brings up the second problem. That it's only decent middle-clas folk who are listening to the truth. And they don't do rock-throwing (more's the pity).
So without a political riot-squad, what are you going to do about it?
Stab them all.Gun said:
What ever you do then, don't watch ITV news this week, that t
t Lawrence McGinty (sp?) is doing a week long special on how MMGW is killing all the Polar Bears, can't stand that bloke.
Thanks. Already spotted and on th 'joke coverage to avoid' list.t Lawrence McGinty (sp?) is doing a week long special on how MMGW is killing all the Polar Bears, can't stand that bloke.V8mate said:
what are you going to do about it
Same as always. There are moments when I'm not posting on PH 
As to the lies being perpetrated wllingly by vested interests, it will just make the eventual crash and burn more hideous, slow, and painful but also more intense.
Very interesting stuff.
I had actually wondered whether the unseasonal cold snap last month would be toted as evidence of [man-made] climate change, but I don't think the great unwashed care any more now the Daily Mail is telling them to panic about the economy instead.
What is very interesting is it shows just how dubious the opinions that many people take to be gospel truth really are. They would doubtlessly have manipulated the real figures to back up their argument in a similar manner, even if they had shown a completely different trend.
I'd like to think I keep a fairly open mind on the subject of climate change. However, this illustrates how determined people like Dr Hansen are to spread their version of events as an absolute truth, even when the supporting evidence turns out to be completely wrong. If nothing else, it shows climate change is far from understood.
I had actually wondered whether the unseasonal cold snap last month would be toted as evidence of [man-made] climate change, but I don't think the great unwashed care any more now the Daily Mail is telling them to panic about the economy instead.
What is very interesting is it shows just how dubious the opinions that many people take to be gospel truth really are. They would doubtlessly have manipulated the real figures to back up their argument in a similar manner, even if they had shown a completely different trend.
I'd like to think I keep a fairly open mind on the subject of climate change. However, this illustrates how determined people like Dr Hansen are to spread their version of events as an absolute truth, even when the supporting evidence turns out to be completely wrong. If nothing else, it shows climate change is far from understood.
Equally, what are 'we' doing about it?
I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
turbobloke said:
Equally, what are 'we' doing about it?
I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
Yo Turbo,I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
I fear the politicos (at least some of them) know full well they are lying to us to achieve political ends. As I have mentioned before, more and more is the phrase "new world order" heard. Create a global "problem" that can only be solved by global action organised by a global government. Step forward the allegedly corrupt UN.
Chirac is on record as saying at the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6) at The Hague, November 2000:
"Kyoto (The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change) is the first component of an authentic global governance"
Honest Jacque? Or "oooops Jacque"?
Tafia said:
turbobloke said:
Equally, what are 'we' doing about it?
I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
Yo Turbo,I guess most people (understandably) can't be bothered to write to MPs and newspapers or e-mail web-based media sites about this, but if you can spare a minute to do so it would help. All independent surveys seen in the last two years confirm that a decent majority of the public are climate realists but it will need another major shift beyond that to encourage the dawning of reality in the political classes.
I fear the politicos (at least some of them) know full well they are lying to us to achieve political ends. As I have mentioned before, more and more is the phrase "new world order" heard. Create a global "problem" that can only be solved by global action organised by a global government. Step forward the allegedly corrupt UN.
Chirac is on record as saying at the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6) at The Hague, November 2000:
"Kyoto (The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change) is the first component of an authentic global governance"
Honest Jacque? Or "Oooops Jacque"?
I'm getting tired of all this "Evidence against Global Warming" vs "UK Apathy".
Can we REALLY do anything about it? Is it possible we can get enough people together to make enough noise? Or will this thread drop off the face of Pistonheads after a few days, like every other one does?
Surely there are enough readers on here, with non-PH friends who believe the same, to get something worthwhile going?
I've read enough from credible folks on here to be willing to join in?
Can we REALLY do anything about it? Is it possible we can get enough people together to make enough noise? Or will this thread drop off the face of Pistonheads after a few days, like every other one does?
Surely there are enough readers on here, with non-PH friends who believe the same, to get something worthwhile going?
I've read enough from credible folks on here to be willing to join in?
A8VIP said:
I'm getting tired of all this "Evidence against Global Warming" vs "UK Apathy".
Can we REALLY do anything about it? Is it possible we can get enough people together to make enough noise? Or will this thread drop off the face of Pistonheads after a few days, like every other one does?
Surely there are enough readers on here, with non-PH friends who believe the same, to get something worthwhile going?
I've read enough from credible folks on here to be willing to join in?
We're all just too decent; that's the problem. Can we REALLY do anything about it? Is it possible we can get enough people together to make enough noise? Or will this thread drop off the face of Pistonheads after a few days, like every other one does?
Surely there are enough readers on here, with non-PH friends who believe the same, to get something worthwhile going?
I've read enough from credible folks on here to be willing to join in?
Look at the 'hunting with dogs' law. Huge numbers of decent people turned out to protest and were completely ignored by the 'townies' who run the joint. Get a load of rock-throwing crusties on your side though, (remember the poll tax?) and you'll change government policy faster than you can say 'swampy'.
It would be wrong to assume nothing's happening.
There are considerable efforts underway at national and international levels.
The difference in effectiveness boils down to governments having £billions to play with (as there are even more £billions at stake) and holding far greater access to and, effectively, control of, the media. The (relative) apathy on here belies a far greater apathy out there.
Any ideas on what to do about that? It's obvious that the only way that meaningful change will occur is when a lot more people - even more than the current two-thirds - make their views known forcibly including at the ballot box.
There are considerable efforts underway at national and international levels.
The difference in effectiveness boils down to governments having £billions to play with (as there are even more £billions at stake) and holding far greater access to and, effectively, control of, the media. The (relative) apathy on here belies a far greater apathy out there.
Any ideas on what to do about that? It's obvious that the only way that meaningful change will occur is when a lot more people - even more than the current two-thirds - make their views known forcibly including at the ballot box.
turbobloke said:
Any ideas on what to do about that? It's obvious that the only way that meaningful change will occur is when a lot more people - even more than the current two-thirds - make their views known forcibly including at the ballot box.
That Cameron-bloke is an even bigger green-loon than the current inhabitant at No.10.Where's the choice?
V8mate said:
turbobloke said:
Any ideas on what to do about that? It's obvious that the only way that meaningful change will occur is when a lot more people - even more than the current two-thirds - make their views known forcibly including at the ballot box.
That Cameron-bloke is an even bigger green-loon than the current inhabitant at No.10.Where's the choice?
I fear that now we have a "Minister for Climate Change & Energy", - note that 'climate change' comes first in the title - the battle has, for now been lost.
There is a person now in Cabinet whose career, department and budget depends entirely on the theory of MMGW. Any gainsay or dissent will be seen by this Department as a direct attack against it and so, all of its huge resources will be mustered against the perceived threat.
Once a Department of government has been created, it is well nigh impossible to 'uncreate' it again.
There is a person now in Cabinet whose career, department and budget depends entirely on the theory of MMGW. Any gainsay or dissent will be seen by this Department as a direct attack against it and so, all of its huge resources will be mustered against the perceived threat.
Once a Department of government has been created, it is well nigh impossible to 'uncreate' it again.
Racingdude009 said:
Talk of climate change being a myth belongs to the same school of science that thinks the World is still flat.
just witness how warm is it in UK Winters now.
Climate change is an integral part of our eco-system, without it the Earth would have died of death at its conception. I think you are getting confused a little, as what is in dispute is MAN MADE climate change, and NOT climate change itself, which must happen, and has been happening for millions, if not billions of years.just witness how warm is it in UK Winters now.
As has been told, a mere 2 thousand years ago, vineyards were prominent Britain, and perhaps, through the natural climate cycle, this could happen again, with or without mans help. This includes the ever changing coastlines of the world, Calais and Alexandria have changed a lot over the centuries, the former being moved quite a few miles from the original town, due to rising sea levels – way before the IC engine and Industrial revolution – and yet some countries in the West want to implement such draconian anti Co2 measures that it will potentially stifle new research and allow manking to move on, which is what it’s very good at when not being dictated to by left wing social engineers, where Darwinism is seemingly reversed.
Where's your graph from TB?
From the WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2007, published March 2008...
"Global temperatures during 2007
The analyses made by leading climate centres rank the year 2007 amongst the ten warmest years on record. The Met Office Hadley Centre analyses showed that the global mean surface temperature in 2007 was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average (14°C/57.2°F)and hence marks the seventh warmest year on record. According to the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the global mean surface temperature anomaly was 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the twentieth century average (1901–2000) of 13.9°C (56.9°F), which ranks 2007 the fifth warmest year in its record.
January 2007 was the warmest January since global surface records were instituted.
Based on the Met Office Hadley Centre analyses, 2007 surface temperatures averaged separately for each hemisphere were 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 30-year mean of 14.6°C (58.28°F) for the northern hemisphere (second
warmest year on record) and 0.18°C (0.32°F)above the 30-year mean of 13.4°C (56.12°F) for the southern hemisphere (tenth warmest year on record). The global average temperature for January was 12.7°C (54.9°F), compared with the 1961–1990 January long-term average of
12.1°C (53.8°F)."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/...
Take a look at page 4 of the above link:
The hottest years on record are:1998,2005,2003,2002,2004,2006,2007,2001,1997,1995 and 1999. (And they even show their confidence bars.)
'nuff said.
From the WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2007, published March 2008...
"Global temperatures during 2007
The analyses made by leading climate centres rank the year 2007 amongst the ten warmest years on record. The Met Office Hadley Centre analyses showed that the global mean surface temperature in 2007 was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average (14°C/57.2°F)and hence marks the seventh warmest year on record. According to the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the global mean surface temperature anomaly was 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the twentieth century average (1901–2000) of 13.9°C (56.9°F), which ranks 2007 the fifth warmest year in its record.
January 2007 was the warmest January since global surface records were instituted.
Based on the Met Office Hadley Centre analyses, 2007 surface temperatures averaged separately for each hemisphere were 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 30-year mean of 14.6°C (58.28°F) for the northern hemisphere (second
warmest year on record) and 0.18°C (0.32°F)above the 30-year mean of 13.4°C (56.12°F) for the southern hemisphere (tenth warmest year on record). The global average temperature for January was 12.7°C (54.9°F), compared with the 1961–1990 January long-term average of
12.1°C (53.8°F)."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/...
Take a look at page 4 of the above link:
The hottest years on record are:1998,2005,2003,2002,2004,2006,2007,2001,1997,1995 and 1999. (And they even show their confidence bars.)
'nuff said.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff