Was there any actual warming to begin with?

posted at 12:20 pm on February 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Times of London delivers a separate blow to the AGW movement today in a report on scientific review of the data used to claim man-made warming of the planet over the last few decades.  Several researchers have found that the measurements of temperatures in the AGW record that showed temperature increases mainly came from land development and urbanization, not from actual temperature increases.  They have made their findings public through peer-reviewed studies that come at a very bad time for the IPCC and AGW advocates:

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations.  One weather station is located next to an incinerator, while others have air-conditioning units in close proximity to the instruments.  Apparently more than one is adjacent to waste-treatment plants, which generate significant heat.

These revelations come on top of a series of embarrassing disclosures about the IPCC report.  Another research team at Loughborough University may expose even more.  Terry Wills will publish a paper in Climatic Change that will argue that the IPCC misread its data, and that the temperature fluctuations it saw are just as likely to be random weather than any systemic trend, whether caused by greenhouse gases or not.

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.


Related Posts:

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 4 5

I think human activity has contributed to it. It’s not all natural.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

So humans are not natural? Gotcha /

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM

This is exactly what the Russians were complaining about before they hacked the emails. They said that the AGW people refused to use any of their readings in Russia because the readings went down.

NASA released a report in Oct 2008 saying that it had been one of the warmest Octobers on record…When called to account because of an unseasonably early winter season in Europe and the United States, NASA backed down claiming that Russian temperature data had been inadvertantly overlooked…Who knew that the Russians would be our friends in debunking global warming theory??? It is a strange world the neo-communists here and abroad are making…Even the old communists disagree!

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM

That doesn’t mean they aren’t right about AGW. It just means I question their motives.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

This started decades ago with “global cooling”. The blame was put on fossil fuel emission particulates … blocking out sunlight and cooling the earth. When it was evident that the cooling period was ending they immediately switched to “global warming” and again used fossil fuel as the villian.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I think human activity has contributed to it.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

So many many years ago before man existed and the entire Earth was of a tropical climate did man cause that? How about the glaciers that disappeared from North America , did man cause that? When the CO2 was several times higher than it is today-did man cause that?

Sheesh think.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

When it was evident that the cooling period was ending they immediately switched to “global warming” and again used fossil fuel as the villian.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Then the believers learned to blame any change on man while forgetting to tell people that climate has always changed.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Maybe we need a new axiom: Rare is there an honest liberal.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM

That was back in the day when the new ice age was coming. Times do change.

entropent on February 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I do remember the crying Indian.

Is LGF banning “deniers”…?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle???

doriangrey on February 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM

HAHAHAHA. I got banned for saying it wasn’t fair to paint tea partier people as racist birthers or truthers. He doesn’t like people who don’t favor his opinion on Darwin or climate change either. Who cares, he’s a has been, not relevant anymore anyway.

scalleywag on February 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Sort of like islam, except with pseudo science thrown in, and Algore as the prophet instead of muhammed, isn’t it?

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Scary true. Hatred of humanity is what unites the Left with Islam.

Maquis on February 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

It is unfortunate that Dr. Vicky Page of the climate change office of the Met has decided to not talk about the actual datasets from the ARGOS array and the satellite measurement system which do not indicate warming, but cooling and moderately so, over the last decade. NOAA, itself, was forced to retreat from its oceanic warming assertion in 2007 when actual oceanic measurements were examined, instrument problems found and compensated for, and the actual change in oceanic temperature found to be going down, not up. The ARGOS system has buoys deployed that drop 20m in the water column for a number of days and then resurface to send back their findings, and at that depth overall temperature is declining.

Notice that her job is on the line to say that things are changing drastically: it is what she is paid to do. The Met Office, itself, has not been beyond criticism for its role in climategate. Thus with what I’ve looked at in the way of research, examining findings across a number of articles, and taking into account her position, I find her evaluation to be questionable, at best, self-serving, at moderate, and un-ethical no matter what the case. By not hedging her words, not indicating that the datasets are interpreted differntly by others and taking on the airs of her office, she goes beyond what is expected professional conduct. This does her career no long-term good at all…

ajacksonian on February 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

So humans are not natural? Gotcha

I’m using shorthand.

Do I have to type out: natural cyclical changes that have occurred over thousands of years without human contributions vs. human contributed changes?

Ugh.

Natural vs. human caused is so much easier.

That the earth had warmer periods when man wasn’t around doesn’t mean that a warmer period now isn’t caused, in part, by human activity.

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

Only one flaw with this statement, namely that there have not been “thousands of weather stations” all collecting data for 150 years.

One of the oldest “weather stations” is in Prague, and has been in operation since the 1700s, but even they admit their old data isn’t all accurate-33 years of their data was in fact “estimated”. And as I recall the first “weather station” in Greenland was not established until 1946.

And many “weather stations” have had their locations moved over the years. One in Maryland moved from one location to another that was 600 feet lower in elevation. But all data from that station was considered to be from the same place.

As Dan Rather would say, Fake, Yet Accurate”.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Not be too snarky but excuse me if I don’t trust the concerns from Moscow about this.

If we were to somehow switch from a petroleum based economy to a green one, Russia would literally collapse overnight.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t right about AGW. It just means I question their motives.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

The Russian point was that the CRU people were using data from urban areas and discarding measurements from non-urban areas. In addition, the Russians claimed (and there’s nothing to dispute this) that the only stations with historical continuity existed in non-urban areas — with some of those stations having provided measurements for over sixty years:

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations…

According to the article, Russian measurement stations as a whole still indicated that about 1.4 degrees C of global warming has occurred over the entire country, but the CRU’s cherry-picking has turned that into about 2.1 degrees C. The Russians also indicate that it’s the Siberian data which has been excluded, since it does not show a warming trend.

The Russian claim certainly seems reasonable, regardless of their petroleum industry issues. The only thing which might collapse this Russian claim would be deliberate manipulation of the raw data by the Russians themselves — and NOBODY is claiming that’s happened.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The argument for global warming, regardless of causation, is mute…There is no global warming…Even if the IPCC’s data sets are accurate, highly suspect at this point, their twentieth century warming claims have already been wiped out in this decade…No warming, sorry…Next crisis please. We had the 1970s claims of a new Ice Age, end of oil, nuclear winter, ozone holes, deforestation, Y2K, Global Warming…What’s next Steve?

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM

That the earth had warmer periods when man wasn’t around doesn’t mean that a warmer period now isn’t caused, in part, by human activity.

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Of course it doesn’t but then the burden of proof that it isn’t natural variability lies with those who claim it is human caused. That burden of proof has not been met.

chemman on February 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The argument for global warming, regardless of causation, is mute…There is no global warming

Sorry, the satellite data says otherwise. We’re not just talking about the last 10 or so years.

Whether that’s non-human caused warming or warming caused, in part, by human activity is the question.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

So what happened to our great and almighty Oz–Al Gore. Why isn’t he out there countering all these outrageous attacks on his pet project AGW ? The guys been spewing more hot air about AGW than all the utilities in the USA put together and he’s gone underground when the AGW movement needs him the most?
Guess he’s too tied up selling all his AGW investments before they crater.

chickasaw42 on February 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Sorry, the satellite data says otherwise. We’re not just talking about the last 10 or so years.

Whether that’s non-human caused warming or warming caused, in part, by human activity is the question.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Satellite data only goes back to 1979 or so. With all the massaging and manipulation that has gone on at NASA and NOAA, I’m not sure that’s very reliable either. The entire thing is politicized, and pressure is put on people to provide the “right” data.

The joke is that AGW proponets are claiming that a small increase in CO2 is powerful enough to actually raise temperatures globally.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Steve- humans are natural and what we do is natural. I am tired of hearing otherwise by those that see humans as inherently not natural. Ugh .

Please explain how climate changed radically in our past when man did not have SUVs. You worry about something the Earth has survived long before man and long before man industrialized.
Man does not even yet understand the effects of the sun and the earth’s rotation and you are buying into this bunk?Especially when we know the Earth has gone through several times before? Sheesh grow up.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Satellite data has only been around a few decades…If you apply satellite data to your discussion, it has to be matched to pre-satellite data which is hopelessly suspect at this point. I’m sorry, I am not buying into manipulated data…Furthermore, who in their right mind would accept data as far back as hundred years. What mechanisms for calibration existed in those years???

I will accept Satellite data provided it has not been filtered through the same models that brought us the hockeystick or cherry picked with respect to regions as was proven in Russia…Even so, we are now talking a few decades. Hard to prove a trend in this short span of years…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

—-\

Steve is not yet a believer but he oh so wants to be.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Even so, we are now talking a few decades.

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

That’s really the key to all this, especially if using satellite temps.

If using surface station temps, past warming periods have been reworked to show less warming and present temps are reworked to show more.

The whole thing is one gigantic mess.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I think it’s worse – the data have been manipulated. I did not think that a year ago.

edshepp on February 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

They cannot even tell us for sure what the weather will be tomorrow. This is just silly and to think grow adults buy into it. There were predictions of a mild winter this year–what happened? So much for their models and super computers.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Agreed…A caveman could shoot holes in this theory now!!!

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:43 PM

However from the same article the warmists throw down the gauntlet:

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

So there you have it.

patrick neid on February 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I think it’s worse – the data have been manipulated. I did not think that a year ago.

edshepp on February 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Yes . They have left out data that does not meet their pre-determined outcome and they have used faulty data. They figured out that if you take a reading next to an unnatural building that has a bunch of heat producing unnatural humans and unnatural machines your temperature readings will be higher. Who would have thought?

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:45 PM

However from the same article the warmists throw down the gauntlet:

patrick neid on February 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I don’t expect these fanatics, commies and crooks to give up. Expect new lies, new techiques of rigging data that is harder to expose and expect the warmers to hide their lies much better than they have in the past.

You can bet they won’t get caught on email again.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM

You folks just don’t get it.
Just recently, comedian and self-styled climate expert, Marc Maron, told us that “Global warming exists… There’s really no reason to fight that fight.”

So really, people. Get over yourselves, and just take his word for it. After all, he knows that China will eventually dominate the global economy, even though he admits, in the next breath, that he knows nothing about China.

Such scholarship speaks for itself.

Sayan Neviot on February 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I think human activity has contributed to it. It’s not all natural.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Go take a piss in the ocean, see how much it rose as a result and you get an idea what humans can contribute to forces of nature.

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

Guess she missed this:

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Can’t get the link to work:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42237

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM

The system worked!

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Science knows that at least 30 times in the Earth’s history glaciers have grown and retreated. Please stop with this madness. If you need something to fear I am sure you can find something more worthwhile.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Sorry, the satellite data says otherwise. We’re not just talking about the last 10 or so years.

Whether that’s non-human caused warming or warming caused, in part, by human activity is the question.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

If we had had satellites in 1800, we would have seen the largest glacier on earth recede and become what we now call Glacier Bay, Alaska. What exactly would that indicate in your mind? Your climate hoax scientists tell us that the 1800s was a cold century.

Buddahpundit on February 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM

What we should do is encourage the use of corn as a bio-fuel./

Too much -they could not even get that right and people buy into their BS? Sorry but this is just out of control. Thank goodness more and more Americans , Britons, and others are seeing this for what it is.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM

That the earth had warmer periods when man wasn’t around doesn’t mean that a warmer period now isn’t caused, in part, by human activity.

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Nor does it mean that the recently ended (?) warmer period was caused by human activity, anymore than it does that the recently begun (?) cooler period was. There is pretty good evidence that there were warmer periods when humans were around, before the onset of the industrial era.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that:

Scientists who are/have been proponents of AGW don’t have the data to prove their case, but instead have omitted inconvenient data and massaged the he11 out of what was left to create their preferred picture.

The same scientists have fought tooth and nail to suppress dissenting opinions, and have instead dishonestly convinced politicians and much of the public that the science on AGW is “settled”.

I don’t give a d@mn what their motives were – a conviction that they were “right” even though they couldn’t prove it, “social justice” by cutting the industrialized west off at the kneecaps, a way to make a fast and very big buck, or all of the above.

ProfessorMiao on February 14, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Has anyone seen any of these reports in American media?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Absolutely key question . . . and a rhetorical one at that, I assume!

Some of us have raised that question on other threads.

The truth is that the British press is now running circles around our press. The Times, The Guardian, The Mirror, and now even The BBC with that devastating interview of Phil Jones, throwing in the towel on the Medieval Warm Period (and along with it, the Hockey stick). Also, he actually admitted he’s bad with paperwork, and that the data was not well organized!

Just think about that one for a second!

Bet he didn’t put that on his resume when he first applied for the job running one of the accuracy-dependent, complex and critical data and record-keeping positions on earth!

The comedic potential is just absolutely brimming, isn’t it?

Imagine if you will Phil Jones’ job interview to run the unit:

Interviewer: “Professor Jones, one of the key elements of this critical position will be to gather, analyze and carefully extrapolate information from huge and varying data sets, culled from scientists all around the world, including daily temperature records from thousands of measurement locales, found literally everywhere on earth.

Some of the data sets are highly sensitive and will require extraordinary precision in handling in order to develop an indisputably accurate and well organized record and analysis. There will be challenges that will require timely responses from scientists and statisticians.

Decisions may well be taken by international governmental bodies on the basis of this that could easily call for international treaties mandating the alteration of the very means of energy production, the very central economic driver in all of the most powerful nations on earth, so I cannot emphasize enough the necessity for absolutely spotless record-keeping, organization and handling on the part of the person who takes this position you have applied for.

So . . . do you think you’re up to the job, then Jones?”

Jones: “Well, to be perfectly candid, I’ve never been very good at paperwork! And, sometimes I’m not so well-organized either.

Interviewer:Right. All well and good, then. You’re hired! And congratulations, Professor!”

It’s embarrassing. And very revealing as well.

In the minds of the left, is this essentially a Joel Chandler Harris situation? Like the Brer Fox, they’re waiting for the trap to spring?

“‘Mawnin’! sez Brer Rabbit, sezee—’Nice wedder dis mawnin’,’ sezee.

“Tar-Baby ain’t sayin’ nothin’, en Brer Fox, he lay low.”

Or, are they just in that early period of denial where they just haven’t quite got their minds right?

Phil Jones sure sounds to me like a guy who is trying hard to get ahead of the story, now that a serious inquire is likely to move forward. A ‘fess up now situation before he gets under oath.

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 3:17 PM

About 21-22 years ago I used to deliver newspapers as a kid. On Sundays, the papers were delivered to my house in 3 sections and I had to put the sections together before taking them out.

I distinctly remember one Sunday one of the 3 sections, had this huge headline about warming. Being 9 or 10 I read the article and didn’t understand much but thought oh man we’re all doomed because as I saw it, in like 3 weeks we’d all be dying in the streets due to some massive heat wave coming that would kill the crops and make the water boil in the oceans.

Luckily I grew up and figured out the whole AGW scam. Sadly, those on the left still have the mentality of a 10 year old and are easily duped into believing this nonsense.

angryed on February 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

This is the default position of someone who starts the discussion with AGW as his premise, and then says “prove to me it’s not correct”. I believe that this would fall under the general heading “anti-scientific”.

Jaibones on February 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Phil Jones sure sounds to me like a guy who is trying hard to get ahead of the story,

I read somewhere that if you’re being run out of town, make sure you’re at the head of the mob, and pretend it’s a parade. Seems apt.

mossberg500 on February 14, 2010 at 3:29 PM

This is the default position of someone who starts the discussion with AGW as his premise, and then says “prove to me it’s not correct”. I believe that this would fall under the general heading “anti-scientific”.

Jaibones on February 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM

He’d burn the right books!

mossberg500 on February 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM

That the earth had warmer periods when man wasn’t around doesn’t mean that a warmer period now isn’t caused, in part, by human activity.

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Did it ever occur to you that human emergence and ascendancy may have occurred based on favorable climate conditions? i.e. that man didn’t cause global warming but global warming caused man?
Isn’t it interesting that history’s two great cultural awakenings (the birth of Christ and the Renaissance) both happened during periods of global warming? The Renaissance was likened to man coming out of the darkness and into the light of reason; easy to understand if the climate warmed up and you suddenly had free time away from seeking food and shelter that you could use to think about other things. Isn’t our current explosion of scientific and cultural achievement similar (the sum total of human knowledge doubling every 10 years)?

We are looking for a way to demonize the weather for political ends when we should be celebrating that the climate has allowed mankind to become all that we are (warts and all). I know this won’t set well with the “Blame the White Man for Everything” crowd butit bears looking into.

IMHO, man isn’t contributing to global temps to any significant degree. The proof? All of the proposed industry killing climate control measures are predicted to result in a drop of a fraction of one degree in average temperature over the course of 50 years. A single volcano or a few extra sunspots can erase or reverse that change.

mad scientist on February 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM

He’d burn the right books!

mossberg500 on February 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM

There’s a simple solution for all of this. We take two scientists, each one representing opposing viewpoints on AGW. We then throw them into a lake. Whichever scientist appears to be more buoyant is less full of $h1t.

You can’t beat the science.

hisfrogness on February 14, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Global warming/climate change is morphing into “climate instability” … and enviro-nuts are accusing people who don’t believe in their quasi-communist religion of commiting “terracide”.

Of course climate instability can cause anything … so proof of instability will be as easy as pointing to the morning rain shower, a recent dry spell or a Class III hurricane.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM

I remember taking a climatology class in college (c. 1994) and our professor discussing this very problem – urbanization & other factors skewing the data such that we should treat reports of rapid warming with skepticism. (Airports are just one example – many And that was in the very early stages of the AGW hysteria… too bad more climate “scientists/researchers/profs” weren’t more like him.

84fiero on February 14, 2010 at 3:45 PM

On the question of whether or not there has been any warming, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts put together a paper on the GISS and other stations, how they have been deselected to remove the colder stations, and how the data has been manipulated to show warming where none exits. Long paper, but mostly graphs showing the data manipulation. It’s a worthwhile read.

iurockhead on February 14, 2010 at 3:48 PM

There’s a simple solution for all of this. We take two scientists, each one representing opposing viewpoints on AGW. We then throw them into a lake. Whichever scientist appears to be more buoyant is less full of $h1t.

You can’t beat the science.

hisfrogness on February 14, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I say we let Bill Nye take one for the team, and estimate what the impact of his non-existance has on the earth! Isn’t that a null hypothesis?

mossberg500 on February 14, 2010 at 3:50 PM

If I hold a match to the bottom of the thermometer, does the room get warmer?

kurtzz3 on February 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Of course climate instability can cause anything … so proof of instability will be as easy as pointing to the morning rain shower, a recent dry spell or a Class III hurricane.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Or, a few robust winter storms occurring right in the middle of the winter, all expectations to the contrary notwithstanding (by the warmists, that is).

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Any believer or wannabe believer needs to notice that their leaders do not act as if this is a catastrophe just waiting to happen. Just watch how they act.

In regards to the Copenhagen Summit -from John Stossel’s blog

According to the organizers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of [British city] Middlesbrough…. [T]he politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus [carbon cuts] by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

From the UK Telgraph in regards to the Bali Summit

Some 15,000 politicians, officials, quangocrats and assorted busybodies are descending on Bali for a jamboree that will produce more than 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The purpose of their trip? To discuss how to reduce CO2 emissions.

and

For example, 19 MEPs, accompanied by advisers and staff, are in Bali, staying at a luxurious spa hotel. Not only will their fares, meals and accommodation be paid for by the rest of us, but they will also claim a further £95 per day.

Then you have to love:

They demand green taxation, yet many of them fly to Strasbourg by the most environmentally unfriendly routes, thereby pocketing higher mileage allowances.
The Kyoto agenda is not principally about affecting climate change. Even if we accept all its proponents’ figures, we would succeed in reducing the projected temperature rise by just 0.3F over the next century (at a cost of an almost unbelievable £3 trillion).

No, the Bali meeting is not really about doing anything. It is about feeling smug; and getting paid for it.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM

This is why Canadians owe Mr. Harper an enormous debt of gratitude for seeing Global Warming and Kyoto as unnecessary burdens on the people and the economy. His delaying tactics prevented what could have been a serious detriment to overall prosperity. The Liberal and NDP parties, on the other hand, were willing to go all out to implement it regardless of the costs. Of course, they sneakily exempted Ontario’s auto industry from their Kyoto plan because they knew it any job losses there would ruin them at the polls. Worse, I never thought I’d live to see the day the NDP would put their precious socialized medical care system at risk, but there’s the proof.

Thank you, Mr. Harper, for saving everything.

KillerKane on February 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said

AWWWwwwwwwhhhwhwhwhwww. Algore, Algore, where art thou algore?

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 4:11 PM

The Obama religion is dying. The Global Warming religion is dying. The “free” health care God is dying. So many Utopian liberal dreams are dying.

It must really suck to be a liberal right now…. and that is good!

Yakko77 on February 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM

The Obama religion is dying. The Global Warming religion is dying. The “free” health care God is dying. So many Utopian liberal dreams are dying.

It must really suck to be a liberal right now…. and that is good!

Yakko77 on February 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM

b.b.b..but, the unicorn that I was promised hasn’t been delivered yet, nor have I found the pot of gold that I’ve been searching for–how can this be?

/libwelcheroff

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM

We might…actually…have pulled this out just in time to save most of the world.

Europe’s still got their fraud scheme, but the Australians pulled the handbrake bare days before disaster, and the Canadians decided they like energy money better than they like Al Gore (an excellent decision.)

Meanwhile we’re not home free, we still have got to figure out how to dig Lisa Jackson out of spider-hole and administer a 12EEE to her backside.

JEM on February 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Ed:
FYI: Satellite data report that this has been the warmest January in 32 years and is 3rd warmest month overall

Satellite temperature measurements: Chart.

And story: Link.

We can throw out the surface measurements and the paleoclimatic data and we still have data like the above.

The planet is warming. Whether man-caused, natural, cyclical or by something else.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

turn your thermostat down !

Wow 32 years of data. Really? How old is the Earth. Sheesh

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Stevey if you look at that chart it appears that at times the Earth is in fact cooling. Still hilarious is to make such statements over so few years . The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Golly gee the stupidity never ends.

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Gee, and here some of us have known ALL of this since the whole hoax got started.

LegendHasIt on February 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

A large El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event exposed the atmosphere to enough extra heat energy to cause the warmest January and the third warmest month overall in 32 years, and the warmest month in almost a decade (compared to seasonal norms), according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

From your own story… you do know that MAN does not cause the El Nino? Its a natural thing which has happend for ages?

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Ed:
FYI: Satellite data report that this has been the warmest January in 32 years and is 3rd warmest month overall

Satellite temperature measurements: Chart.

And story: Link.

We can throw out the surface measurements and the paleoclimatic data and we still have data like the above.

The planet is warming. Whether man-caused, natural, cyclical or by something else.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Your gullibility is too close for comfort.

Why didn’t you comment when satellite measurements showed cooling?

Look where 2008 and 2009 rank in the US. Not near the top.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM

FYI: Satellite data report that this has been the warmest January in 32 years . . .

The planet is warming. Whether man-caused, natural, cyclical or by something else.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Except that you just made the very unscientific error of cherry-picking one month of data, and you have leveraged it into a wholly unsupportable general claim — i.e., “The climate is warming.”

Climate changes.

I suspect — from what I’ve personally experienced — that February will prove to be a very different story indeed. We’ll see. But I would not claim thereby that AGW has in consequence been disproved. Nor would I point to a a few robust winter storms in the middle of the winter and say, “See? That proves the theory of climate change!” I’m not an idiot like Keith Olbermann.

One can understand your desperate attempt to rescue a faltering notion, a theory that you have put your faith in.

But advancing flawed arguments, especially in the presence of witnesses who know exactly how to see through them will simply not help your cause.

Quite the opposite.

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM

The planet is warming. Whether man-caused, natural, cyclical or by something else.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

two words….”Data Homogenization”

Fighton03 on February 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM

A gentleman with a blog looked at some of the weather stations and reported on some being in the middle of parking lots, etc. I don’t remember the blog, but he deserves some credit for trying to make us aware of the coverup/fraud.

amr on February 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Breaking News!!!

World Economy Will Be Destroyed All Based On 32 Years Worth Of Satellite Data. AGW Scientists Concur … It Must Be Done They Say

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 4:57 PM

looks like my link doesn’t work.

2008 ranks 76th out of 115

2009 ranks 81st

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM

By the way, SteveMG, no less a climate warming figure than Phil Jones disagrees with you, on both the substance, and the fact that you arrived at your conclusion based on just one month of data.

Here is a question he was asked by the BBC in their interview with him, together with his answer:

Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Back to the drawing board, eh?

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM

http://pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/the_satellite_temperature_maps_from_nasa_may_all_be_nonsense_here_is_why

Wow… this is interesting… seems that magnetic anomolies can mess up the Temp readings from the Sattys… going to have to dig into this a bit more…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 5:05 PM

One weather station is located next to an incinerator

Well isn’t that just an ‘inconvenient truth?’

anuts on February 14, 2010 at 5:08 PM

More here via John at Powerline, analyzing the Q & A from the BBC interview with Phil Jones.

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM

They need to go to Amarrilo Texas. There is a well proven theory that if you do not like the weather, just wait a while, it will change.

A few months back my brother told me it was raining cats and dogs when he got up, snow was falling around lunch, and in the afternoon they had a raging sand storm going.

I guess that would be a one day example of globle warming causing more rain, then globle warming causing more cold, then the end result, Globle warming turning us into one big dust bowl.

Franklyn on February 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The Little Green Johnson is going apoplectic over in the underground echo chamber.

BL@KBIRD on February 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Sort of like islam, except with pseudo science thrown in, and Algore as the prophet instead of muhammed, isn’t it?

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

And the High Goracle spoke all these words, saying: I am thee Goracle thine Oracle.

ONE: You shall have no other Oracles before Me.

TWO: You shall not make for yourself any carbon images–any likeness of anything carbon that is in heaven above, or of anything carbon that is in the earth beneath, or anything carbon that is in the water under the earth.

THREE: You shall not ever take the name of thee Goracle thine Oracle in vain.

FOUR: Remember My birthday, and keep it carbon free unless you have credits that you bought from Me.

FIVE: Honor Me instead of your father and your mother especially if they don’t believe in Global Warming.

SIX: You shall not ever malign Me or else you be apostates.

SEVEN: You shall not commit adultery with My wife, but I can with your wife and daughters and goats.

EIGHT: You shall not ever steal My carbon credits.

NINE: You shall not raise any challenges to the most holy doctrine of Global Warming.

TEN: You shall not covet any of My mansions; you shall not covet My private jets, nor My SUV’s, nor My pizza, nor My Krispe Kreame dounuts, nor My Biggie Fries, nor My hot fudge sundaes.

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods

No, it’s only yes–or no, Dr. Jones. It either meets the less than 5% chance threshold or it doesn’t. There is no positive trend towards significance anymore than there is negative trend away from significance. Either it meets it, or it doesn’t.

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Someone get the Holy Hand Grenade, so we can do away with SteveMG, once and for all!

mossberg500 on February 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

That should be as obvious as the nose on ones face. I’ve seen weather changes here in DFW over the last 40 or so years due to the increased development but ONLY for the metroplex area and NOT for the surrounding rural area. Those local changes ARE NOT indications of overall earth climate change.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Chuckles Johnson has today scoffed himself cross-eyed at the Daily Mail story, claiming that The Mail is not a serious news outlet (sound familiar?) and mocking the right wing bloggers who “fell for it.” His readers provide the other half of the echo chamber, mainly due to the fact that dissenting readers are generally banned if they have the audacity to stray from the lgf agenda.

But what about this story? Surely Chuckles can’t be claiming that The Times of London isn’t a serious paper. I’m not going back there to check, having already used up 2010′s visit this morning.

Sharke on February 14, 2010 at 5:38 PM

That should be as obvious as the nose on ones face. I’ve seen weather changes here in DFW over the last 40 or so years due to the increased development but ONLY for the metroplex area and NOT for the surrounding rural area. Those local changes ARE NOT indications of overall earth climate change.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

That’s why NOAA deleted most of the rural surface temperature stations … to get rid of the real temperatures.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Sharke on February 14, 2010 at 5:38 PM

I just did a smash and grab, the Johnson is writing 10% of the posts, he is picking on commenters and I saw 12 deleted posts. He is only talking about the Daily Mail ignoring all else. Now that the dam is breaking wide the Little Green Johnson is in for some rough times.

BL@KBIRD on February 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

That’s why NOAA deleted most of the rural surface temperature stations … to get rid of the real temperatures.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Wow, just went and looked… and it looks like they stopped using Denver International Airport! Its been in use since 1890, and is well sited… out in the plains East of Denver, with nothing but the Airport around it for miles…

Wow… just wow…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Wow, just went and looked… and it looks like they stopped using Denver International Airport! Its been in use since 1890, and is well sited… out in the plains East of Denver, with nothing but the Airport around it for miles…

Wow… just wow…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 5:52 PM

This talks about it … in addition they also got rid of higher latitude stations.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 5:58 PM

they stopped using Denver International Airport! Its been in use since 1890,

Um, what kind of aircraft were they operating there in 1890? Hot air balloons? DIA also opened in 1995. It was empty land before that.

Aviator on February 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM

You have to wonder though, the global warmists have been using the IPCC report as justification since it came out.

Why did it take so long for critics to start looking at what the IPCC actually said and the sourcs of the claims?

Like the T-shirt says, “Ouestion Authority!”

And watch out for “too good to check”.

schmuck281 on February 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Sorry, the satellite data says otherwise. We’re not just talking about the last 10 or so years.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

We’ve only had weather satellites since the early 1960s. So they account for less than 50 years’ worth of data. And the earlier satellites were basically for taking pictures, not measuring temperatures.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM

So, where does this leave the Penn State University investigation?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM

And you people doubt conspiracy theories? Global dictatorship based on taxing the Air you breathe? That’s some Dr.Evil sh** right there!

abobo on February 14, 2010 at 6:26 PM

2009 was the hottest year ever according to a report issued at the end of November that year.

December is the end of any year, but those figures weren’t needed though they ‘indicate’ the year wasn’t the hottest in history. Those colder figures were an ‘aberration’, and as such can’t be included in any final report.

In the matter of AGW: They decide, you obey.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:27 PM

So, where does this leave the Penn State University investigation?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM

The accusations were part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Dr. Mann was exonerated. End of story; so there! ~razzzz~ The science is settled.

/total sarc

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Ed:

FYI: Satellite data report that this has been the warmest January in 32 years and is 3rd warmest month overall

Satellite temperature measurements: Chart.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

But that is based on only 10 years’ worth of data.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM

We’ve only had weather satellites since the early 1960s. So they account for less than 50 years’ worth of data. And the earlier satellites were basically for taking pictures, not measuring temperatures.

[Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM]

The Global Ice Age scare got politicians to give them the satellites to measure temps. So they start in 1979 at the bottom of the the trough and everything into the future is basically the hottest in “recorded history”.

Dusty on February 14, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Latest New York Times corrections page: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/corrections-page.html

Mervis Winter on February 14, 2010 at 6:36 PM

BTW I find it amusing that these weather “scientists” can instantly determine that January of 2010 was the warmest in 30 years, but take years and years to analyze other weather data to make their “conclusions”.

Prime example? Here in New Hampshire, Mt. Washington held the world surface wind speed record starting in 1934. 231 MPH.

However, about a month ago, NOAA announced that the MWN record had been eclipsed by a surface wind gust on an island off of Australia. In 1996.

In other words, it took NOAA 14 years to determine that a decades-old weather record had been broken. Yet they are able in less than 2 weeks to conclude that January was warm?

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:36 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

BTW the temperature chart you linked to is from a former NASA scientist who believes in Creationism. Is he right about that too?

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

But that is based on only 10 years’ worth of data.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Yeah, well…Republicans owned slaves, didn’t they? Name me one who didn’t. Bet you can’t! And provide the link, too!

/total sarc

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Sarcasm is served best w/o tags. :-)

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Sarcasm is served best w/o tags. :-)

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 6:41 PM

If I don’t, and even if I do, some lib will take me seriously. Like yesterday, where a lib called me ‘human garbage’ b/c the buttnut didn’t get my point. Or, really, refused to see my point of aim.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5