IPCC chief hid glacier information for months

posted at 9:55 am on January 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Two weeks ago, the Times of London rocked the global-warming movement by revealing that one of their pet claims — that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — was not only based on nothing but speculation, but also lifted incorrectly by the IPCC.  The UN body has a bigger problem today, as the Times now reports that the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, knew about the error for months, and never bothered to mention it at the Copenhagen summit:

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

Pachauri’s excuse?  The IPCC was “terribly occupied” with Copenhagen arrangements and couldn’t be bothered with issues like incorrect data in the reports they planned to present there.  They finally decided weeks after their convention to look at the questions that had arisen (in places like the Times) and then moved “very fast” to correct their reports.

I think Bagla could be forgiven if he sees Pachauri’s idea of “very fast” as, well, glacial.  Pachauri and the IPCC only moved “very fast” after the Times exposed them.  Had that not happened, that wildly incorrect speculation about Himalayan glaciers would have remained in the report.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Flash forward to my grade school days of the late 80s and early 90s, and the propaganda was all about the rain forest and acid rain from Canada.

Heehee, selias! I forgot about acid rain. We were warned not to eat snow…but we still did, unable to resist its cool deliciousness. We still knew better than to eat the yellow variety, though.

Grace_is_sufficient on January 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

If this is what you think, you might be interested in this from NOAA:

• The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM

NOAA’s data is corrupt.

conservnut on January 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

He was too busy looking for a new Insurance company to make the fix….

Distracted by all those commercials… ya know?

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Nope. My sons take hits on tests for not towing the line.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM

To use BO’s words, I trust you ‘get in their face’ about it. Maybe consult a creative attorney too.

petefrt on January 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM

We were warned not to eat snow…but we still did, unable to resist its cool deliciousness. We still knew better than to eat the yellow variety, though.

Grace_is_sufficient on January 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

ROFL!!!

capejasmine on January 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Gov’t organization. Gov’t funding. Some of that may evaporate if they’re not trying to solve the imminent manmade global warming crisis, non?

don’t know…do you have any other evidence to quote?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I’m wondering if any parents are seeing signs of acknowledgment of that skepticism from their kids’ teachers. Connie on January 30, 2010 at 11:32 AM

I teach at a middle school and can assure you that I take great delight in presenting those pesky science articles that show AGW to be a complete fraud to my fellow teachers. I’ve had a lot of teachers thank me for the information too. In informal discussion, my classes have gone from “they all believe it” a few years ago to “only a few believe it” now. We have to keep in mind as well that children can read a thermometer unlike some adults.

Mojave Mark on January 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Maharishi what have you done
You made a fool of everyone
You made a fool of everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUWS0qKBzoM

Miwagi on January 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I teach at a middle school and can assure you that I take great delight in presenting those pesky science articles that show AGW to be a complete fraud to my fellow teachers

…scientific articles or propaganda? What do you tell your students? What do you show them? Do you provide a balanced view so that they can decide for themselves?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:46 AM

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM

That would be nice if the data since 1990 weren’t so flawed. The U.S only uses 400 surface stations now. We use to use up to 6000 stations. But as Hansen said in defense of using fewer station it is just too time consuming to manually enter data from that many stations. They fill in the blanks by using averages from stations up to 1000 km away. The vast majority (80%)of the 400 stations in use are not even in compliance with NOAA siting requirements. The vast majority are in Urban areas, easier to monitor, with few in rural and mountainous regions. Of course the data will show a hot decade it is the only possible outcome of the flawed methodology.

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Disgraced former Obama czar reemerges

Connie on January 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

When will people realize that these “elites” are no better, and usually much worse, than ordinary people.

Ordinary people don’t have the temptations they have.

notagool on January 30, 2010 at 11:50 AM

All these jerks that lied to the whole world for monetary gain should be taken to antarctica and left for a year or 2.After all it,s warming up down there they should be alright.

thmcbb on January 30, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Serious question for you Oakland do you still suck on the teat of big carbon (Oil, coal, natural gas)?

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM

But our know-it-all Obama restates his commitment, and supposedly an American commitment, to this garbage, while most Americans understand the idiocy of what he is doing. How much damage will Obama do to our fragile economy because of his zealous adherence to this radical, false, program? We are continuing to see the damage he will do by regulation, or “governance” as he calls it, in last week’s zany SEC action to the effect that public companies need to start considering their future success in light of climate change.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Rubbing the failure of this hoax in my liberal friends faces has been, delectable.

daesleeper on January 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Go ahead, you can admit it. I’ll bet your actions resulted in some personal warming. :-)

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM

That would be nice if the data since 1990 weren’t so flawed. The U.S only uses 400 surface stations now. We use to use up to 6000 stations. But as Hansen said in defense of using fewer station it is just too time consuming to manually enter data from that many stations. They fill in the blanks by using averages from stations up to 1000 km away. The vast majority (80%)of the 400 stations in use are not even in compliance with NOAA siting requirements. The vast majority are in Urban areas, easier to monitor, with few in rural and mountainous regions. Of course the data will show a hot decade it is the only possible outcome of the flawed methodology.

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Serious question for you Oakland do you still suck on the teat of big carbon (Oil, coal, natural gas)?

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM

You forgot to add ‘and manipulated data’.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?
oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Did you even listen to the question you just asked. It doesn’t matter if it is the only data available if it comes from flawed sources the data is flawed. Garbage in = garbage out.

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Serious question for you Oakland do you still suck on the teat of big carbon (Oil, coal, natural gas)?

…relevance?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM

But as Hansen said in defense of using fewer station it is just too time consuming to manually enter data from that many stations. …

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

… and as everyone knows, if it’s haaard, then it’s okay to do a sub-standard job.

This guy considers himself a scientist?

AZfederalist on January 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I have empirical photographic evidence…

I have pictures of my wife and I standing in Corpus Christi, TX this past Holiday season with snow falling around us. 3-4 inches of snow fell over those couple days.

4 years ago I have pictures of myself surfing in Corpus Christi, TX on Christmas day with 7 inches of snow on the beach.

According to the NOAA, the last time it snowed in Corpus Christi with more than 0.1 inches of snowfall…1918.

selias on January 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

We were always told that Acid rain came from the USA… OMG were they kidding us, or just LYiNG like the IPCC< and East Anglia???

dugbru on January 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM

It doesn’t matter if it is the only data available if it comes from flawed sources the data is flawed. Garbage in = garbage out.

chemman on January 30, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Which scientific body asserts this?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I have empirical photographic evidence…

I have pictures of my wife and I standing in Corpus Christi, TX this past Holiday season with snow falling around us. 3-4 inches of snow fell over those couple days.

4 years ago I have pictures of myself surfing in Corpus Christi, TX on Christmas day with 7 inches of snow on the beach.

According to the NOAA, the last time it snowed in Corpus Christi with more than 0.1 inches of snowfall…1918

Interesting….but are you intending to talk about weather or climate? Seems like the latter.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I teach at a middle school and can assure you that I take great delight in presenting those pesky science articles that show AGW to be a complete fraud to my fellow teachers

…scientific articles or propaganda? What do you tell your students? What do you show them? Do you provide a balanced view so that they can decide for themselves?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Gee it’s a bummer when the socialist propaganda going on in public schools is interrupted for a moment, isn’t it? How about a balanced view on American History instead of revisionist history? How about a balanced view on intelligent design? How about a balanced view of Barack Hussein Obama mmmm.mmmm.mmmm?

Christian Conservative on January 30, 2010 at 12:27 PM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?

There’s better data from satellites, but they don’t show the warming the terrestrial data shows, so the AGW “experts” discard it. The two data sets have been diverging for a couple of decades, and the discord is being ignored by the IPCC except as a footnote. You’d think it would lead them to question their data or how it’s processed, but it seems like they have more important goals in mind than getting the answer right.

Socratease on January 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Lindsey Graham and John McCain could not be reached for comment…This whole global warming fraud is finally collapsing…Graham could earn a lot of respect by calling for an investigation of NASA and NOAA roles in this fraud. It is clear that they were part a nexus of fraud perpetrated by the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglican University…Remember, these are the so-called scientist who destroyed their raw data rather than submit to Freedom of Information Act requests to share their data…The silence of our leadership in this regard clearly indicates their complicity in this fraud…

Nozzle on January 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

There’s better data from satellites

So, where is this data? Do you have a reference?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Interesting….but are you intending to talk about weather or climate? Seems like the latter.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Haha. Tell you what…you tell me which peer-reviewed scientific body defines climate and weather the ways you see fit.

NASA describes climate as a period of averages over 30 years, yet you throw up flawed data models and claim climate change for a period of 9 years. Which suits your argument better?

4 years of record snowfall, in a region which saw nothing of its kind for almost 100 years previously, represents something of a “climate” event to me…and apparently the NOAA. Not closely strung together freak weather occurrences.

Evidently the same period of time the region has seen relatively low hurricane/tropical storm occurrences, despite the overwhelming number of famed scientific bodies claiming we would see record hurricane seasons.

selias on January 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM

NASA describes climate as a period of averages over 30 years, yet you throw up flawed data models and claim climate change for a period of 9 years. Which suits your argument better?

I am not arguing or claiming anything. You are citing weather events and attempting to represent them as climatic trends (i.e. 30 year averages). I am wondering why you claim a couple of weather events as “empirical evidence” of something related to climate.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I am not arguing or claiming anything. You are citing weather events and attempting to represent them as climatic trends (i.e. 30 year averages). I am wondering why you claim a couple of weather events as “empirical evidence” of something related to climate.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Hey…it’s ok. I get why you’re not just coming right out and stating your agenda, instead relying on vague and provincial Socratic methods.

You have provided no empirical data…hence my sarcasm. You also inferred to short-term (albeit flawed, I believe) weather patterns as trends. Your very inferred smell tests, don’t meet mine.

selias on January 30, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Selais: Read above and you will see the data I provided.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:17 PM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

So if it is crap we should make major and costly changes?

You are a nice little lap dog. Too bad (But lucky for America) more and more Americans and Britons are seeing through the charade. Also luckily China and India are not buying in. So keep lying and carrying the water. You are losing.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Oakland I realize that folks like you find some life purpose in this lie and scam. You would be better off putting your energies elsewhere.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Selais selias: Read above and you will see the data I provided.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:17 PM

What makes you think I haven’t?

selias on January 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

So if it is crap we should make major and costly changes?

I don’t know what you mean; what’s the “crap” that you are referring to?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM

What makes you think I haven’t?

Your previous posting.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Your previous posting.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Dave Bowman: What’s the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave Bowman: I don’t know what you’re talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.

selias on January 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Heres a very simple example of the currently flawed data sets they are using.

The are currently using 4 Data Sets for California. One at the San Francisco Airport, and THREE in Southern California.

None in the Central Valley. None in Northern California. None in the mountains.

NPlease explain how they can use those same sensors to give a valid measurment for the entire State? When the State has 4 or 5 VERY distinct weather pattern areas?

Oh, and for your information, the BASELINE they use DID use sensors from all those different weather pattern areas… they just don’t use them anymore.

And based on this very flawed scientific model, you with to give the Government MORE power to regulate our lives?

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM

And based on this very flawed scientific model, you with to give the Government MORE power to regulate our lives

What “flawed model” are you referring to? Where is there a better model? Who is talking about giving power to “regulate our lives”?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I do believe in Hindu the name Rajendra Pachauri actually means “lying deceitful pile of steaming yak dung”!

pilamaye on January 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Global Warming = Biggest snow job in history. Mandation!

starboardhelm on January 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

What “flawed model” are you referring to? Where is there a better model?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Comprehension challenged?

The model described above.

And a better model? Would be to go back and use ALL the data sensors, like they used to.

I know for a FACT that there is a viable valid weather station at what used to be Castle Airforce base, outside of Merced Calif, which could easily be used for one data point in the Central Valley.

They do not use that data, because they do not WISH to use that data… their excuse? its too hard to input… even though their FUNDING has skyrocked the last few years…

Heck… you could just use the data set you can get online, EVERY DAY from Weather.com… with its THOUSANDS of local temperature data points…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Obama to Gore:

Don’t worry about the law suits, Al. I’m putting NASA on the case. If they can land a man on the moon, they can probably prove AGW.

petefrt on January 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Pretty much. Obama has put NASA out of the space exploration business and tasked them with the “Hide the decline” project.

wildcat84 on January 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Comprehension challenged?

The model described above.

I don’t see a model described above. Do you know what you mean by “model”? Are you referring perhaps to a “protocol”?

How many data are necessary, worldwide, in order to satisfy everybody that enough data are taken? If the data that are presently taken are employed longitudinally over a three decade period of time, would that be sufficient from which to draw meaningful conclusions?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Ah… someone who wishes to argue semantics, vice science and meaning…

I get it.

Do you believe that 4 data sets for the State of California are sufficient? When there are HUNDREDS of other data sets also available, and when SOME of those other data sets were used to produce the Baseline against which you are now comparing todays data?

You ask what would be sufficient… yet do not admit that what they are currently using is inherently flawed.

Tell ya what, give me a Grant to do this for a living? As THEY have? And I’ll create your Data sets for you…

Its not that hard… computers and modern communication are pretty awsome things…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 2:50 PM

There’s better data from satellites

So, where is this data? Do you have a reference?

There ya go, Oakland, move them goalposts!

How about:

Divergence Between GISS and UAH since 1980

A comprehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data

Links to the data are in the articles.

Socratease on January 30, 2010 at 3:00 PM

don’t know…do you have any other evidence to quote?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM

…scientific articles or propaganda? What do you tell your students? What do you show them? Do you provide a balanced view so that they can decide for themselves?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:46 AM

But, is it not the best data that we have? Do you or anyone else have any better data?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

…relevance?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Which scientific body asserts this?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Interesting….but are you intending to talk about weather or climate? Seems like the latter.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM

So, where is this data? Do you have a reference?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM

I am wondering why you claim a couple of weather events as “empirical evidence” of something related to climate.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM

don’t know what you mean; what’s the “crap” that you are referring to?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM

What “flawed model” are you referring to? Where is there a better model? Who is talking about giving power to “regulate our lives”?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I don’t see a model described above. Do you know what you mean by “model”? Are you referring perhaps to a “protocol”?

How many data are necessary, worldwide, in order to satisfy everybody that enough data are taken? If the data that are presently taken are employed longitudinally over a three decade period of time, would that be sufficient from which to draw meaningful conclusions?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Does anyone else notice a trend with this poster?
It never has any relevant points or facts, it just questions other peoples facts and figures . The more info he is provided with, the more intense his questions about that info, but it never inputs or counteracts with any info of its own.

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM

There is just so much evidence!

daesleeper on January 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM

It’s been said before but…Here’s a huge hat-tip to George Bush for having the wisdom to say no to the global warming fear mongers…He denied the perpetrators of this global fraud the victory they saught at Kyoto and provided time for this hoax to collapse under the weight of its own lies…Thank you Mr. President!

Nozzle on January 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM

…scientific articles or propaganda? What do you tell your students? What do you show them? Do you provide a balanced view so that they can decide for themselves?

oakland on January 30, 2010

Science isn’t about “balance” and it’s not about consensus. It stands on it’s own or it falls on it’s face.
As of now, the AGW “science” is doing a faceplant. I’m guessing you would still want teachers to show Algore’s movie, discredited though it has been.

Extrafishy on January 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

You ask what would be sufficient… yet do not admit that what they are currently using is inherently flawed.

I am not sure what you mean by “flawed”. I suppose that all samples are “flawed” in that they are, just samples and not all of the data that could have been taken, given unlimited resources. However, in order to test models, one must employ the best available data – no? If there is better data, then who has it?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 3:57 PM

As of now, the AGW “science” is doing a faceplant. I’m guessing you would still want teachers to show Algore’s movie, discredited though it has been.

I would be against showing “An Inconvenient Truth” in the schools because, as far as I am concerned, it was a piece of propaganda (didn’t show opposing views) and was not produced by the scientific community.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Does anyone else notice a trend with this poster?
It never has any relevant points or facts, it just questions other peoples facts and figures . The more info he is provided with, the more intense his questions about that info, but it never inputs or counteracts with any info of its own

I cited facts. Did you not see them?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM

What facts ?
Oh this one

If this is what you think, you might be interested in this from NOAA:

• The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Facts really ?

NOAA’s data is corrupt.

conservnut on January 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

Why wait, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri? What’$ at $take?

… and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India’s own carbon exchange.

But this is peanuts compared to the numerous other posts to which Dr Pachauri has been appointed in the years since the UN chose him to become the world’s top ‘climate-change official’.

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation.

This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’, and was made chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the carbon market.

The list of posts now held by Dr Pachauri as a result of his new-found world status goes on and on. He has become head of Yale University’s Climate and Energy Institute, which enjoys millions of dollars of US state and corporate funding. He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank.

The latest edition of TERI News quotes him as telling the US Environmental Protection Agency that it must go ahead with regulating US carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to pass its cap and trade bill.

One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials.

ReagansRight on January 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

It’s always cloudy in Oakland. That’s why they need so many WHAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulances. Reference Monty Python:This isn’t an argument, it’s just a series of contradictions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw

birdhurd on January 30, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Much jail time is warranted for all of these UN and climate fraud folks. Very, very much.

neurosculptor on January 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM

What facts ?
Oh this one

If this is what you think, you might be interested in this from NOAA:

• The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Facts really ?

NOAA’s data is corrupt.

conservnut on January 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Your words or someone else’s? That is, according to whom is the data “corrupt”?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Your words or someone else’s? That is, according to whom is the data “corrupt”?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Thanx for proving my point
Again
wrt

Does anyone else notice a trend with this poster?
It never has any relevant points or facts, it just questions other peoples facts and figures . The more info he is provided with, the more intense his questions about that info, but it never inputs or counteracts with any info of its own.

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

AGW is Oakland’s religion and passion.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2010 at 5:28 PM

AGW is a religion. Faith is all that is required. Facts are heresy.

Guardian on January 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Was reading an autobiography the other night written by a guy chronicling his troubled relationship with his father, who was a certified card-carrying Democrat all of his life. This took place in the 1960s.

He had been lying to his Dad on a daily basis-about something trivial, to boot-for several weeks, and his father fell for the lie hook line and sinker. When the son told him that he had been in fact lying, this textbook liberal told him it was “OK” for him to lie to him-because his lie let Dad believe something he wanted to believe.

Pretty sure the George Costanza character was modeled on such a guy-after all, as George said once “A lie isn’t a lie, if you believe it”.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Oakland

I have been reading your crap on this entire thread. You are either obtuse, obnoxious, or retarded. Do you or don’t you think four weather stations in CA w/three of those in So. Cal. can provide sufficient data for a region as large as California?

Thank you, Arnold

arnold ziffel on January 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM

the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, knew about the error for months, and never bothered to mention it at the Copenhagen summit

What did you expect? Some sort of dedication to the truth, or factual information, or honesty? If it takes a lie to get control, then lies you will get from climate “scientists”… they gave up any use for science long ago.

gekkobear on January 30, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Your words or someone else’s? That is, according to whom is the data “corrupt”?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM

So far in this thread, you have posted exactly one paragraph of “evidence”, without a link. And you’re basing your entire “argument” on this one thing.

Did you actually bother to click the clink that was provided?

But just how accurate are these figures? The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists. The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers. To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they’re being maintained. His site, surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data. The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

Here in New Hampshire a couple of winters ago, NOAA was busted for shabby record-keeping exactly in this vein. Something to do with snowfall.

And in Hawa’i', NOAA had a faulty temperature sensor at one of their weather recording stations at the Honolulu airport. It was recording air temperatures that were 2 degrees too high, because of the sensor’s location near the asphalt road.

But of course, when the error was pointed out, NOAA decided not to throw out the data, but to keep it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/noaa-fubar-high-tempclimate-records-from-faulty-sensor-to-remain-in-place-at-honolulu/

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 6:10 PM

The photo at the head of this story says it all! Can someone please explain to my how it is that pompous deceiteful asses always look and dress like…well, pompous deceiteful asses???

jgdp on January 30, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Glaciergate?

Amazongate is even worse. When you see who wrote this paper that helped the IPCC share the Nobel Prize with Al “I’m not a moron” Gore, you will die of painful laughter.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html

For serious students this is the 1/27/10 just released paper on cooking the books

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

patrick neid on January 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM

I have been reading your crap on this entire thread. You are either obtuse, obnoxious, or retarded. Do you or don’t you think four weather stations in CA w/three of those in So. Cal. can provide sufficient data for a region as large as California?

Given that I am obtuse, obnoxious, and retarded, why does my opinion matter in reference to your question?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:22 PM

So far in this thread, you have posted exactly one paragraph of “evidence”, without a link. And you’re basing your entire “argument” on this one thing.

Sorry, here’s the link:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:27 PM

AGW is Oakland’s religion and passion.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Oakland is a “mission” poster. Wasted time attempting to educate or deter. That is Oakland’s amusement level.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 6:29 PM

For serious students this is the 1/27/10 just released paper on cooking the books

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

patrick neid on January 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM

This doesn’t seem to me to be a peer-reviewed paper. Is it not a propaganda piece (one never or rarely sees such terms as “nonsense” in peer-reviewed scientific literature). The conclusion appears to be given at the outset; is this scientific?

Scientific works are normally subjected to a peer review process before being submitted for publication; this doesn’t fit into that category.

And, Lord Monckton is said to have been a reviewer. He doesn’t possess any degree in the sciences, does he?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:40 PM

NOAA data problems as noted by Joseph D’Aleo
NOAA snowfall record problems confirmed by NOAA
Long listing of multiple NCEP/NCAR problems with data files
Anthony Watts looks at NOAA ice core problems
Roy W. Spencer looks at NOAA spurious oceanic warming
Steve McIntyre looks at NASA documents garnered from Judicial Watch
Dr. Roger Pielke Senior examines problems with GISS, NOAA and CRU datasets
The urban heat island effect showing up as a major problem in datasets, first started by surfacestations.org
And in 2008 I looked at a few of the problematic datasets, including the major problem with the GISS datasets that had processing errors between the early 1990′s and 2007, and that NOAA was contradicting itself on oceanic temperatures. Basically anything using GISS data prior to 2007 is working on badly corrupted datasets.

Finding the systemic problems with the GISS, NOAA, CRU and other datasets is a widely known and talked about problem, including the biases that have been put in place in standardizing measurements.

A good search engine helps or just looking at Watts and McIntyre on a regular basis.

Asking for proof is as good as done. NOAA, NASA and CRU have all been backtracking on their datasets. Until those who utilized those datasets reanalyze their past work, such derivative work is suspect on the ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ theory. And that covers all the AGW work post-1992. When the GISS data was reprocessed the warmest year in the 20th century turned out to be: 1934.

And if you are looking for polar ice, tune into ‘Deadliest Catch’ where pack ice has come further south than anyone in living memory has seen it. The Arctic sea ice coverage is back after a shift in the winds moved it northwards for a few years.

The problems with AGW go on and on and on… from not bothering to reconcile gravity measurements with on-the-ground snow coverage in Greenland to the Antarctic ice cap expansion, there have been sufficient anamolies just on what has been purported to put the entire affair into doubt. Little things like Kilimanjaro having been ice free 12,000 years ago… at the end of the last ice age… really does bring terrestrial mountain glaciation into question as a barometer of anything.

A good search engine and an inquisitive mind go far.

ajacksonian on January 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Sorry, here’s the link:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Didn’t read the fine print from the NOAA page, huh.

Also, the pending HANSEN wreck hasn’t been factored into that data. The baseline data was cooked. The sea data has also already been called into serious question by sat data. The entire story is coming apart at the baseline seams.

This Administration and NOAA have become rather predictable in the necessity to revise prior reporting as erroneous.

Recall, as you peruse the fine print from your NOAA link, that they have already had to admit that prior such claims were wrong, and had to retract them.

And no, I will not supply you with the relevant links; do your own damn homework. Your mission appears to be attempting to make other people jump through hoops for you.

Fine print from the NOAA link:

Please Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed. Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2. This report uses the ERSST.v3b dataset to assess the entire year. Therefore, values for individual months of January-June presented in this report may differ slightly from those reported when ERSST.v2 was the operational dataset. For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v2 and to access the most current data, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Thanks, ajacksonian, for the references.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Fine print from the NOAA link:

Please Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed. Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2. This report uses the ERSST.v3b dataset to assess the entire year. Therefore, values for individual months of January-June presented in this report may differ slightly from those reported when ERSST.v2 was the operational dataset. For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v2 and to access the most current data, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page

Seems like the scientific process is alive and well at NOAA. You are faulting them for issuing cautions and admitting the tentative nature of their analysis until such time as more data are available? Seems like responsible reporting to me.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

So far in this thread, you have posted exactly one paragraph of “evidence”, without a link. And you’re basing your entire “argument” on this one thing.

Sorry, here’s the link:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Well, let’s see. In another comment just above, you question data simply because it wasn’t “peer-reviewed”. If all the “peers” are already in the tank for AGW, that’s irrelevant. And does NOAA have their peers review their data?

As for the link you provide, I found some interesting things buried in there.

The Alaska data in this report is a composite of several preliminary datasets at NCDC.

“Several preliminary datasets”?

Alaska is the largest state in the US. What NOAA has admitted in the sentence above is that they are basing their Alaska “data” on a very small number of observation stations.

Based on data through December, above-average temperatures were measured in the lower troposphere during 2009. Data collected by NOAA’s TIROS-N polar-orbiting satellites and adjusted for time-dependent biases by NASA and the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, indicate that temperatures in the lower half of the troposphere (lowest 8 km of the atmosphere) over the U.S. were slightly warmer than the 20-year (1979-1998) average.

Here NOAA admits that they were measuring temps by satellite, not by actual ground stations.

And if you go to the NOAA “Methodology” section, which is here:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/500mbexp.html#ranks

they use several different periods of time to base their “conclusions” on. The primary time period is from 1895 to the present, but on the same page they also use other time frames, like “temperature variability:, where they only use the years 1961 to 1990 (why?). Just below this, they use a totally different time span for the National Temperature Index (a 60 year span). They also base some of their conclusions on only 2 years’ worth of data. And as I post above, other data was based on only a 20 year time span.

And then they admit using a method that was only developed 10 years ago.

The fact that they use several different time spans to conclude what is “true” should leave neutral observers skeptical.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Seems like the scientific process is alive and well at NOAA.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

LOL, see my 7:15 post.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM

The sham of a scam continues to amaze…

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:11 PM

One of the most insidious parts of the scam is going to be the revelations of the manipulation of the peer review process. These people were not acting as scientists, but as politicians, crooked politicians. The ONLY thing saving the scientists at West Anglia from prison terms is a six-month statute of limitation.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:18 PM

LOL, see my 7:15 post.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Sorry, Del, but it doesn’t fit the narrative. ;-)

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

After all these years, it’s still hard to believe how thick the brain of a Liberal Progressive is. It’s as if common sense was removed at birth from all Liberals leaving them dependent upon government to wipe their own butts.

Jeez Oakland, get a crow bar and open up your mind.

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Right on target as usual Yoop…

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Jeez Oakland, get a crow bar and open up your mind.

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

For a ‘mission poster’ a closed mind, or a feigned closed mind, is a requirement. This is considered entertainment for them. Note the short sentences, single references, and short retorts. The game is to force others to proffer paragraphs of rebuttal, driven by as little input on their part as possible.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Jeez Oakland, get a crow bar and open up your mind.

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Can’t do that
Too busy sniffing his fingers

macncheez on January 30, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Seems like the scientific process is alive and well at NOAA. You are faulting them for issuing cautions and admitting the tentative nature of their analysis until such time as more data are available? Seems like responsible reporting to me.

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Then we can hold up the laws and regulations until they’re sure, can’t we?

If the Census Bureau only visits 4 towns in California I won’t have a comparable model to contest its results. I will not myself go do 30 million questionnaires. I don’t have to. I can contrast its current performance with prior performance and find its methodology slipshod. That requires no field test. We don’t have to spend a few years screwing up to see what happens. We can go back to doing it right. And as a rule, a presumption, MORE observations are better than less. Let NOAA prove older measurements could have been achieved with their methods before we accept it.

Chris_Balsz on January 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Let NOAA prove older measurements could have been achieved with their methods before we accept it.

Chris_Balsz on January 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Yep. As you are obviously aware they have already attempted to model the past with their present-day algorithms and programs. The attempts were failures.

So, their answer was to forge ahead anyway. Budgets and grants were/are at stake.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 8:05 PM

But how could bin Laden, Gore, and Obama be wrong about AGW?

TXUS on January 30, 2010 at 10:24 AM

You know you are screwed when even bin laden is co-opting your AGW talking points. Bin laden did the same thing with the “My Pet Goat” meme. The Jihadists follow the DNC playbook. Doesn’t bother me a bit; birds of a feather and all that.

Geochelone on January 30, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Sorry, Del, but it doesn’t fit the narrative. ;-)

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I took some meteorology and climate classes at the University of New Hampshire some years back, and also took some astronomy and oceanography classes. The Astronomy Department at UNH is full of grant-obsessed scientists, so much so that it’s now a major NASA research center. What’s so curious is that their “observatory” uses a 14 inch, 30 year old amateur telescope that I could buy on eBay for $5,000 or so. Contrast that to other real astronomy schools with real observatories.

My point here isn’t to slam UNH, only to suggest that NASA has gotten a lot of their “data” from schools like this.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Time to tar and feather these global flim flammers!

chickasaw42 on January 30, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Scientific works are normally subjected to a peer review process before being submitted for publication; this doesn’t fit into that category.

And, Lord Monckton is said to have been a reviewer. He doesn’t possess any degree in the sciences, does he?

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 6:40 PM

The peer review process is officially broken per the East Anglia e-mails. Any document, “peer reviewed” or not, is suspicious — in fact, the “peer reviewed” documents are now considered lies due to the data suppression techniques practiced by the leaders in the “peer review” community.

As for non-degreed reviewers, they are currently showing far more honesty than the degreed ones. Look at the guy who filed British FOIA requests for the raw data. No degree.

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Well at least there seems to be some actual journalism starting.

I wonder if the Obama’s complete failure has opened the eyes of journalists everywhere.

The foreign press demonized Bush and promoted Obama and then Obama turned out to be a communist!

I bet more than a few journalists are re-evaluating going all with the crowd after discovering that the crowd’s agenda is pretty darn scary!

Okay that’s what should have happened…. but really AGW is actually being questioned! That can only be a good thing.

petunia on January 31, 2010 at 12:17 AM

oakland on January 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Hey twagtronic, you are a fool. A normal person would try to be persuasive. All you have is ignorance wrapped in absurdity.

I AM ON YOUR SIDE.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 1:37 AM

After all these years, it’s still hard to believe how thick the brain of a Liberal Progressive is. It’s as if common sense was removed at birth from all Liberals leaving them dependent upon government to wipe their own butts.

Keemo on January 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM

In a corollary to Evan Sayet’s point about leftist thought, it’s not that they don’t *see* common sense, it’s that they rail against it. They look back at 80,000 years of human history and conclude that common sense wasn’t able to rid humanity of poverty, hunger, conflict and war, and conclude that the reason for this can only be found in the attempt to apply common sense. And so, in order to move to a utopia where all poverty, hunger, conflict and war are permanently and structurally banished, we must both replace common sense with an elaborated, consciously constructed reality that purports to banish these, and ‘recognize’ that any attempt to apply any common sense whatsoever (especially any that contradicts this construction or the authority of those imposing it) is evil and must be stamped out.

So, it’s not that the oaklands out there can’t figure out what common sense is, it’s just that they won’t go near it because they see applying common sense as inherently evil, as an act of irreducible cruelty toward an ever-expanding list of targets such as the ‘underclass’, the ‘third world’, the ‘animals’, or (now) even the ‘planet’.

RD on January 31, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3