Politick

If You Still Believe in Global Warming, Watch This Video

Is your belief a matter of Science or of Faith? This video calmly walks through the ice core data to show how today's warming compares to other warming. Are we at the highest temperatures in recorded history? Are we warming faster than Nature can manage? Watch and see for yourself what facts say the answers are.

After seeing this, you will ask, well, isn't this all out there in the public record, and don't climate scientists and policy-makers already know this? You may be shocked (at least, if your belief is based on Science) to know the answer is no, or likely not, since this information and much like it has been suppressed from the political process and kept out of the peer review process. Peer review has been corrupted by the ClimateGate Cabal. 

So now ask yourself: is my belief in man-made global warming based on the view that Man is spewing huge amounts of noxious stuff into the ecosystem, especially Co2, and all of that up there MUST have some consequence? Instead of continuing runaway capitalism industrial society, we NEED to get more in alignment with the Planet, becoming One with the Environment? If so, you have answered the question. Have a Namaste!

The NYT Has Been Predicting Polar Ice Melt for 128 Years

Funny - the New York Times has been reporting on the Polar ice melt for over 100 years, and usually blaming it on man. The dumbest is the 1959 story of the ice disappearing - which was followed by 20 years of Global Cooling. From the Daily Telegraph (Australia), Eternal Melting:

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:

• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

Russian Climate Center Accuses CRU of Cherry-Picking to Concoct Warming in Russia UPDATED

Russian papers are reporting that another fallout of ClimateGate is that Hadley/CRU has distorted the climate of 1/8th of the planet by cherry-picking warmer stations and ignoring the colder ones (emphasis added):

[T]he Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

My take: Russia is an Oil State and would lose out if fossil fuels were taxed or limited. This report may be true but given the timing of it (Copenhagen) and the politics involved, their core data needs to be reviewed before their conclusion is taken seriously. If it is found that CRU has cherry-picked, it becomes another reason to remove the climate cabal and have the temperature record re-constructed with unbiased climate scientists, if any are left. 

UPDATE: Climate realists are weighing in on the importance of the Russian Revelation. The lack of Siberian data explains an odd trend in the data to show unusual warming over Russia. Many papers are based on the HadCRUT data, which is the warmest of all the datasets; all of them would need to be revisited. This map below shows a bizarre hotspot over Russia; look at the dark cherry-colored red surrounded by gaps in the upper center-right of the map. Siberian heat wave? No: cherry-picked data. 

This problem in Siberian data also is another nail in the coffin of the former head of CRU, Phil Jones, who admitted that he "went to town" to suppress the Siberian colder temperatures in an email exchange with the nefarious Michael Mann, the author of the debunked Mann Hockey Stick:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

"Warmest Decade" May Be Due to a Splice Error

Bob Tisdale of Climate Observations is one of the more careful climate bloggers, and he highlights today a severe problem with the Hadley/CRUT temperature record: a bad splice in 1998 due to a change of the core data sets. This chart is one of four he constructed to show the problem is endemic across the various data sets. The splice increased the reported temperature by around 1 degree, a huge amount given the general trendline has temperature increasing less than one degree per century. Bob concludes:

If the Global HADCRUT data is in record territory in 2010, it is in large part the product of poor source dataset splicing of the HADSST2 portion of the HADCRUT data. The period bias in their SST data varies from 0.06 to 0.12 deg C, depending on the dataset one uses for comparison.

Now It Appears the NOAA Has Also Been Hiding The Decline (in the US!)

When it rains, it pours. Besides the two examples from Down Under, we now have several examples from California of what appear to be blatant manipulation of temperature data to hide a decline. In both cases the older record was truncated since it showed warmer temperatures back in the 1880s. This chart is from Orland, CA, a rural site which has happily stayed in one place for 100 years. The motion GIF should show the deception (click on it if it doesn't animate). A second example in the link above comes from Fairmont , CA, another happy, stable rural site. 

Yikes, as they say in Oz. When these guys adjust, they don't mess around. So how can they trumpet the current year as one of the hottest ever when we have had record cold since October, certainly in the US? 

In both cases NOAA like CRU before it are now claiming the raw data no longer exists. I guess they learned - Nixon should have burned the tapes! 

There may be a prosaic explanation, but instead all we get from the Climate Cabal are attempts to minimize the damage and pretend nothing happened. Worse, we hear Al Gore continue to repeat the falsities as alarmist fact. The cover-up and obfuscation simply compounds the mistake. This is the worst scandal in science in 500 years, and it is getting smellier as more revelations come to light. 

Another Example of Man-Made Warming (By Adjusting Data)

Just after the expose of unjustified adjustments (always upwards) in Oz data, a Brisbane resident took a look at the raw data at his local airport and how the ClimateGate Cabal has manipulated it. This animated chart shows the fraud. His take:

As you can see the raw data shows a downward trend of about -0.6 C per century. The unadjusted data however shows an opposite trend of +0.6 C per century. Intuitively as the airport grew from a quiet strip to a busy international jet airport one would think the more recent data would be adjusted downwards for the heat island effect. Instead we see that the data prior to 1978 is adjusted down and the data in recent times was adjusted up. 

 

ClimateGate is More Than Emails - The Data Have Been Artificially Increased UPDATED

Think this is just a few sloppy emails, but the data itself is ok? Here is a clear case of fraud in the data coming from a bit of Sherlock Holmes work in the land of Oz. The sleuth goes through the real data and the adjustments to it by the ClimateGate Cabal. He looked at the raw data, and then the adjusted data, and figured out how severe the adjustment was. The first chart shows this, and below it are his comments.

 

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around.

He then went on to look closely at the specific thermometers and the adjustments made. Here is his second chart and comments (emphasis in color added):

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

The raw data from this area across multiple thermometers showed a consistent story of NO WARMING. There was no need to make those adjustments other than fitting into the pre-conceived case for Global Warming. The Climate Sleuths are progressively looking at such cases across the whole disgraceful data set. You can read more in my prior post, where they deconstruct Northern Europe to show the baseless adjustments there simply designed to fit the story, not the facts.

UPDATE 12/13: The Economist tries to rebut this work, and the author comes back and shows how their arguments were specious: The Economist claimed that the upwards adjustments were due to a change in a thermometer, but the author shows that none of the adjustments had anything to do with that, nor were due to a purported dramatic temperature anomaly 1941, because there was no such event. 

You can read this failed resurrection along with an AP story today that says they read the emails and found that they do not suggest the data itself is faked; but it turns out the AP author was part of the offensive email traffic and he appears to be in on the scam. He never reported on the negative side of the story, nor the undue pressure brought against skeptics, even after he had been emailed on these topics. At the very least he should be off this story due to a conflict of interest. 

We are now seeing the complicit media participate in the cover up. Sad, especially when a quality magazine like The Economist crosses the line like this.