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Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations.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

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

Which journal is going to pull the paper authored by mann first?

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 6:45 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

Exactly … they start at the end of a cooling cycle … so arctic ice was thick and temps were cool. When coming out of a three decade cooling period, ice usually shrinks and temps go up.

It was rigged from the getgo.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 6:47 PM

BTW, anyone notice the 50 years ago Mirror front page that Maetenloch linked in the ONT last night?

One story was, “Snow Paralyzes Traffic in Dixie.”

Dusty on February 14, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Dusty on February 14, 2010 at 6:49 PM

As a lib noted yesterday on another thread, it’s bad to go back into history. So what happened back then (50 years) doesn’t rate.

BTW–you’re a racist, too, because America had slavery 200 years ago.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Hey SteveMG,
The satalite sensors were calibrated with the ground readings, the adjusted ground readings. When we put independant sensors in the oceans and measured the satalite readings against those, low and behold, there was no warming. The whole data set is compromised. Get it? Or will you continue to stick your head in an ostrich?

LakeLevel on February 14, 2010 at 7:00 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

Pronlem w/ Steve MG is that first he said this:

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

And then he provided a link that was based on only 10 years’ worth of data.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM

The satalite sensors were calibrated with the ground readings, the adjusted ground readings.

Your argument is with the scientists not me.

If you think all of this is one giant hoax, you’re welcome to your thoughts.

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

And then he provided a link that was based on only 10 years’ worth of data.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Yeah, well, America had slavery for hundreds of years.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 7:08 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

You’re a good little sheep.

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

So, your position is Don’t argue with me, argue with the scientists…

But then you make a sweeping scientific judgement… and argue about it online…

Do you not see the… nuance… there (I’m trying to be polite…)

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

NOAA intentionally deleted higher latitude and rural surface stations … over 75% of the total stations were deleted. The result was a warming trend where there would have been none. How do you justify that as sound?

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 7:13 PM

In my view, the science is sound.

This is mind boggling to me. The walls are crumbling down all around the AGW crowd, every day brings new relevations of manufactured science and corruption and he thinks the science is sound.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 7:17 PM

I can think of no better way to drive with extreme prejudice the final nail in the AGW coffin than for the Nobel Committee to formally demand that Al Gore return his prize, as well as the cash that came with it, strictly on the basis of him promulgating what is now proving to be the ultimate junk science theory blown to smithereens!

And as a side note, perhaps the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences should look into having him return that Oscar as well!

pilamaye on February 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Then open your eyes and gain a better view.

If it’s natural or of something else, you can’t do squat about it. Well, maybe you can…

How about being elected president and start a limited (under 300 bombs in the megaton range) nuclear war. Offset the nuclear winter against AGW (which is a lie), and viola! Equilibrium.

If warming is man-made, kill you kids, wife, mom, dad, and finally yourself because if you’re not part of the immediate solution you can only be part of the problem. The CO2 you all emit is poisoning the rest of us!

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM

BTW–I was just giving you a hard time at expense of liberals and their view. I believe as you do.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I can think of no better way to drive with extreme prejudice the final nail in the AGW coffin than for the Nobel Committee to formally demand that Al Gore return his prize, as well as the cash that came with it, strictly on the basis of him promulgating what is now proving to be the ultimate junk science theory blown to smithereens!

And as a side note, perhaps the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences should look into having him return that Oscar as well!

pilamaye on February 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Uh, you want the commitee that gave OBAMA, Yassar Arafat, and Jimmuh Carter prizes… to take back Gores???

Only when hell does indead freeze over…

And don’t even get me started on the Oscars…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 7:21 PM

drudge is headlining Phil Jones’ AGW retreat right now.

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 7:24 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

Liberal Progressivism is merely the 21st version of communism…Repackaged and rebranded yet it is the same old socialism. It is a philosophy built on lies with a history of epic failure. The Soviet Union imploded. The Chinese adopted market principles. North Korea is a society in an advanced stage of dying. The cubans live in a fifty year old back to the future world…Classical socialism was only possible through armed conflict. The bolsheviks, Nazis, Maoist, Vietcong, Castro and others destroyed tens of millions who opposed their philosophies. Modern socialists or neo-communists have no chance of taking what they want thru force. So, they have to lie and manipulate the public to achieve their goals…The Green movement is imploding because it is built on lies…It was really a trojan horse for the neo-communism yet without the threat of arms and with non-traditional media available to educate the public it is still-born…Yes, it sucks to be a neo-communist these days. It will get worse as the truth spreads and free people are provided a choice…They will always choose freedom. It’s human nature…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Steve,

Phil Jones of CRU fame is singing like a canary…It seems that he is admitting that the science is not sound as you claim. You may want to adjust your paradigm for it seems the facts have changed…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 7:34 PM

The only Global Warming is when Goreboar, Soros, GE, and the rest of the ilk stash cash in their back pockets.

yoda on February 14, 2010 at 7:39 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

I admire your stamina on this … but …

Long ago the earth was colder than it is today, as evidenced by glaciers and whatnot so we can agree that at least until quite recently some sort of long term warming has been taking place.

However, long before we can get to your questions we must ask:

Q1. Is this warming a problem for us?
If the answer is yes:
Q2. Is the problem big enough to warrant attention … i.e is it bigger than any of the other really obvious problems that we ought to be dealing with right now?
If the answer is yes:
Q3a. Is there anything we can do to limit the warming?
Q3b. Is there anything we can do to limit the negative effects of the warming on human activity or, indeed, use the warming to our advantage?

Questions about whether the warming is greatly influenced by human activity are not relevant until we get to Q3 in my list above. Are we sure that Q1 and Q2 are both answered affirmatively beyond reasonable doubt? Even if we answer yes to Q1 and Q2, Q3a might not be relevant if we can answer Q3b constructively … i.e. with proper planning, we might be able to make the warmer years ahead much happier and more successful (however defined) than the colder years we have now.

YiZhangZhe on February 14, 2010 at 7:41 PM

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Just keep molesting that yard bird ;-)

macncheez on February 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Just keep molesting that yard bird ;-)

macncheez on February 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM

SAVE THE CHICKENS!!!

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Everyone wants to know WHERE Al Gore is. At least we know WHAT he is doing: doubling down. It must be something ingrained in the Liberal psyche.

http://blog.algore.com/

In the meantime, this old Onion article is probably closer to the inconvenient truth than any Nobel prize-winning movie made bye the Goracle:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_caught_warming_globe_to

And if this were all true, then wouldn’t he be doing this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_son_in

StubbleSpark on February 14, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Somewhere in a non-descript warehouse in Brooklyn…

“Hey, Big Tony!”

BT- “Louie, whadda ya doin’ here?”

Louie- “Boss man sez dose carbon credits that ‘fell’ of the back o’ Fat Al’s truck ain’t worth nuttin’! He sez to dump’em into the river”

BT- “Too bad. I gave a dozen to lil’ Tony. You know his buddies at UC Berkley would’a paid alotta bacon for dem tings…”

viviliberoomuori on February 14, 2010 at 7:54 PM

SAVE THE CHICKENS!!!

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 7:47 PM

The chicken saviour

macncheez on February 14, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Or, really, refused to see my point of aim.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM

You have to learn to lead them a bit more. They’re slow in the mind but fast little rascals on their feet.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 7:58 PM

In my view, the science is sound.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

I had nearly 50 years working as an earth scientist. I know a little bit about the history of the earth, and also how science works. I have seen how the inner workings of peer review can be corrupted.

Bluntly, in this case, your claim that the “science is sound” is pure, unadulterated bull $hit.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM

How about Beck having Lord Monckton on his show on Monday !

macncheez on February 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM

You have to learn to lead them a bit more. They’re slow in the mind but fast little rascals on their feet.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 7:58 PM

how do they rate in comparison to the VC?
/apocalypsenow

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM

How about Beck having Lord Monckton on his show on Monday !

macncheez on February 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM

who dat?

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM

BTW–I was just giving you a hard time at expense of liberals and their view. I believe as you do.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Yes, I figured that out.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 8:13 PM

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

If the data is compromised it doesn’t matter how good the science behind it is. The conclusions are only as good as the data going in.

chemman on February 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM

In my view, the science is sound.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

As I noted earlier, the website for the temperature chart you linked to earlier is from a scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t believe in Evolution. Wouldn’t that give you doubts?

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 8:21 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.

SteveMG

But since there is nothing abnormal, unprecedented, unusual or unnatural occurring climate-wise today, there’s no reason to believe that a warmer period now is being caused by man.

xblade on February 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG

So is gravity….that doesn’t mean it’s caused by man.

xblade on February 14, 2010 at 8:28 PM

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG
So is gravity….that doesn’t mean it’s caused by man.

xblade on February 14, 2010 at 8:28 PM

tru dat..

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM

So is gravity….that doesn’t mean it’s caused by man.

xblade on February 14, 2010 at 8:28 PM

You mean, I don’t have to keep holding on with my Toes?

(for those who don’t know… Dragon Age Origins reference)

Romeo13 on February 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM

The thermometer is edging lower, more than it edged higher before.
Time there was warmth and plenty, but that cup soon runneth no more.
Though we could not caution all, we still might warn a few:
Dont lend your hand to raise no flag atop no Ship of Global Warming Fools.

Ship of Global Warming Fools on a cold cruel sea
Ship of Global Warming Fools sail away from we.
It was later than we thought, when we still might have believed somewhat as you,
Now we can no longer share your delusions, Ship of Global Warming Fools.

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM

a scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t believe in Evolution

So that’s the standard for competence?

I thought deniers prided themselves in being non-conformist to the norm. Now you are seemingly critical of someone for having the same inclination to buck the norm?

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Save your bullsnot for your own kind. You’d rather see us who disagree with you all shot. Or, at least, put in prison. Who do you think you’re kidding?

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:37 PM

If the data is compromised it doesn’t matter how good the science behind it is. The conclusions are only as good as the data going in.

chemman on February 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM

GIGO?

For most of us that means Garbage In Garbage Out, although for sheeple of the Church of Global Warming it seems to be Garbage In Gospel Out.

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Save your bullsnot for your own kind. You’d rather see us who disagree with you all shot.

Wow! Talk about hysteria….

I thought that respect for differing views was a hallmark of a conservative.

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:39 PM

I thought that respect for differing views was a hallmark of a conservative.

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Commenting on your sides intolerance does not make us intolerant.

massrighty on February 14, 2010 at 8:42 PM

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Hallmark of a liberal, as you so often say all the time.

And, really, it was from among you types who said ‘deniers’ should be put in prison. Except now, with new evidence, seems you are the deniers. My, how times have changed.

Since one of you said we should be imprisoned, he speaks for you. He was a ‘meteorologist’ on the Weather Channel. If you disbelieve me, look it up yourself. I dare you

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:42 PM

you types who said ‘deniers’ should be put in prison

Truly paranoid

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Truly paranoid

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Look it up yourself, if you dare. Someone on TWC said we ‘deniers’ should be put in prison. It was said last year, and he speaks for all of you.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:46 PM

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM

For a tease: Bill Nye, just the other day, said skepticism of global warming is ‘unpatriotic’. I know you saw that!

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Never mind the whole point of applying the term ‘denier’ to those who doubted the notion of AGW was to by means of subtext (though not often used subtly) to link questioning AGW to Holocost Denial.

CBS ‘Global Warming Special’ Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

It all ways has, after cooling.

Johan Klaus on February 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Truly paranoid

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Now that the illogical underpinnings of your magical theory are being washed away, all you have left is name-calling.

Pity.

massrighty on February 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

In a few simple words someone please tell me the precise tempt the planet needs to be in to be considered “healed”. What ideal state did it fall out of that we humans caused.

And I want proof it remained in that state as a constant not as pert of cycle.

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 8:54 PM

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy bastards” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

From http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

Just another tease for your palate…

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:56 PM

How about some more, from the same site I linked above:

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Round about the cauldron go
In the fraudulent data throw
Fillet of IPCC snake
In the cauldron boil and bake
Eye of Nye and toe of Freezing Frog
Heat from incinerator and tongue of UN dog
Maw of ravening tax shark
Root of Gore hemlock digged in the dark

Cheshire Cat on February 14, 2010 at 9:06 PM

n a few simple words someone please tell me the precise tempt the planet needs to be in to be considered “healed”. What ideal state did it fall out of that we humans caused.

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 8:54 PM

As an aside, from the late Triassic until the end of the Cretaceous the dinosaurs really like that much warmer climate. Problem is it only lasted about 130 million years.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Problem is it only lasted about 130 million years.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Not nearly long enough to establish a proper family :P

daesleeper on February 14, 2010 at 9:11 PM

You there, oakland? Tell me some more how I’m ‘paranoid’. The site to which I linked has links of its own, to show they’re not making things up.

You alarmists are the hysterics and paranoiacs, niot us who question you Chicken Littles.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:12 PM

a scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t believe in Evolution

So that’s the standard for competence?

I thought deniers prided themselves in being non-conformist to the norm. Now you are seemingly critical of someone for having the same inclination to buck the norm?

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Good Night Nurse, the night shift came on duty. You start your “response” in classic Saul Alinsky fashion. Won’t work here.

As I recall, on some Hot Air “global warming” threads last week, you trotted out the exact same “evidence” that SteveMG did. And we blew it all out of the water, because the “methodology”, when one bothered to click and download the pdf files, showed that they were all cherry picking data to achieve a result they wanted.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Just another tease for your palate…

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Then there was Dr. Heidi Klum, of the Weather Channel (is this who you were thinking of?), who publicaly called for the decertification of meteorologists who did weather forecasting if they denied AGW.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

looks like the homeys are serving up troll stew tonight. cool.

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Heidi Cullen

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I forget names, but it’s about accurate. Tho I think it was a guy, actually. It’s been a while and I’m bad at names.

If a lib wants to prove me wrong, he/she can look it up, too.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Here’s some more, linked through Drudge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

A quote from the news piece, from Daily Mail. Emphasis mine:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Heidi Cullen

thomasaur on February 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM

DOH! I knew that. Thanks.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

I’d hate to be around when Charles Johnson finds out. Can you ban the world for not warming?

misterpeasea on February 14, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Nothing wrong with Heidi Klum, either. Diggity, diggity…

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Those who still claim the science is settled will look increasingly foolish when the statement below receives wide circulation.

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. … Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today … then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

The speaker? Some guy named Phil Jones.

Basilsbest on February 14, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Sound science in global warming is sheep science. Or lemming science.

Dhuka on February 14, 2010 at 9:33 PM

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Hmmmmm—English dogs love homework just like American ones do, huh?

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Hmmmmm—English dogs love homework just like American ones do, huh?

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Yes! We must not be feeding them right, not giving them enough fiber. LOL

When I was a kid, we used to say we folded our homework into paper airplanes, and someone hijacked them to Cuba. Ah, how I miss the 60s!

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Just to be sure I got this right. We have one of the guys who was responsible for feeding the IPCC its climate information coming out and admitting, “Hey you know there hasn’t been any warming since ’95 and oh yeah guys the planet might have been warmer before our time but not due to humans.”

Simply put the first step in admitting the notion was wrong to star with, yet we still have folks declaring the “science is settled”?

Insanity!

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

When I was a kid, we used to say we folded our homework into paper airplanes, and someone hijacked them to Cuba. Ah, how I miss the 60s!

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM

so that’s what tipped off the cubanos in the BOP invasion…! huh, the truth comes out.//

ted c on February 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

If these kind of “scientists” with their kind of methods were involved in drug testing even arsenic would probably be approved as a health drug.

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Those who still claim the science is settled will look increasingly foolish when the statement below receives wide circulation.

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. … Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today … then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

The speaker? Some guy named Phil Jones.

Basilsbest on February 14, 2010 at 9:33 PM

It’s going to get even worse. Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of NASA GISS is a colleague of Hansen and mainstream global warming. In a review comment to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report he said this:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.”

The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

The authors of the Executive Summary in the IPCC’s summary report simply responded to the review comment this way:

“Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

In my view, the science is sound.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

I’m sure that people said the same thing when the science at that time believed that the earth was flat and/or was the center of the universe. As a scientist myself I can say that science is NEVER settled and is often proven to be unsound. You don’t believe me, ask Galileo or Einstein.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Insanity!

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Nope. Agenda.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:52 PM

. . .

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Hey, Stevie . . . I know it’s a new page and all, but when are you going to answer even Phil Jones who just told the BBC that there has been NO statistically significant warming since 1995, huh?

And when are you going to stop making such ridiculous statements based on ONE MONTH of data . . . a VERY unscientific thing to do?

You cited ONE MONTH of satellite data (January) for making that comment the first time — right here — remember now?

You claimed that ONE MONTH of data established it as the “warmest” January in 32 years, and on the basis of that, you claimed that it proved that global warming was taking place.

Do you ever actually respond, or do you just engage in the typical meaningless tactic of repeating your statement – without offering any legitimate basis to it whatsoever?

Just as a reminder, here was Phil Jones responding to the BBC:

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

A: (Phil Jones) 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.

Now, given the fact that the warmists claim that 1998 is either the warmest or the second warmest year on record (1934 is the other competitor) what do you think the answer would have been if they as asked only about the past 10 years — 1999 through 2008 . . . or 2000 through 2009?

But you wnat to look at ONE MONTH and declare victory?

Trochilus on February 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

As a scientist myself I can say that science is NEVER settled and is often proven to be unsound. You don’t believe me, ask Galileo or Einstein.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

My field partner and fellow scientist used a sig note I have always liked:

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM

What would be the effect of this Global Warming fraud and coercion, if successful? To make one part of the world fools and the other part serfs; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Al Gore and the Global Warming fraudsters and fanatics converted simple changes in the weather into an engine with which to attempt to enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Scientists.
- Thomas Jefferson paraphrased

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 10:02 PM

MB4 on February 14, 2010 at 10:02 PM

*Standing ovation*

Saltysam on February 14, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Someone over at the Truthiness Warmers better work up an apology to Wegman while their baking their humble pie. He punched holes in their whole closed loop review process and called out poor statistical analysis years ago.

MarkT on February 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …“

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Almost in the same category as ‘oops’. Interesting how many great science discoveries are accidental finding one thing while looking to confirm another.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …“

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Almost in the same category as ‘oops’. Interesting how many great science discoveries are accidental finding one thing while looking to confirm another.

docdave on February 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM

“oops” is ok, as long as it’s not followed by “Oh sh…”

Fighton03 on February 15, 2010 at 12:12 AM

This response to oakland goes better here than where I put it:

So, this work is tainted at the outset because the author is implied to have produced a conclusion that agrees with the prevailing view of the funder. This is different from university research in which new work is subjected (normally) to tremendous scrutiny and (if peer review is competent) opposing views that must be addressed in order for the work to be accepted.

The CRU e-mails indicate that the peer review process was subverted for this science. Editorial boards of peer review journals were tampered with to assure that only people with a positive view of AGW were gatekeepers of articles submitted for peer review. Hence, in this area of science, peer-review is no longer a measure of correctness.

Also, it is obviously a propaganda piece, as the conclusion is stated at the outset, there are missing references that should appear (such as in the first figure), there are quotes given that seem to ridicule opposing views (never done in legitimate scientific work) and there are no alternative methods or data introduced that support a theme of falsified data.

oakland on February 13, 2010 at 8:31 AM

The conclusion is always stated at the outset. In a scientific paper, that’s called the abstract. Even newspaper articles are written that way, because the editor may decide to chop the bottom N column inches of the article off for some nice advertisement or more important article — so the writer better make sure their article can survive such editing with minimal loss.

On to your other points. OK, try these:

Snark from the AGW group — in particular, Phil Jones: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate

Note the interesting statements about tree ring data. Suddenly, tree ring data no longer tracks temperature, because, if one believes the tree rings, the temperature is decreasing, and the AGW folk know that this isn’t the case. It’s only happened over the last 50 years, so they discarded the last 50 years of tree ring data to make the model behave properly.

The question which immediately leaps to mind is: Isn’t the data earlier than 50 years old also suspect? If not, why not? That is a question Jones amazingly never addresses.

Now, let’s look at an AGW proponent’s website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html

In order to construct the hockey stick without tree rings, Mr. John Cook has to rely upon (see his last graph — Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions) how the HAD and CRU instrumental data diverge from the other graphs. If that isn’t a sign that either something is wrong with the other graphs or that something is wrong with the HAD and CRU data, I don’t know what does.

Then the Russians chime in with their criticism of the HAD and CRU data: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

And then there’s the cherrypicked tree ring data:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

No wonder the CRU people are suddenly disparaging tree ring data — after basing their tree ring analysis on exactly 12 special trees from the Yamal survey!

You can see where this is going, and it isn’t good for AGW enthusiasts — I’m going to cease using the word “scientist” when referring to them from now on.

unclesmrgol on February 15, 2010 at 12:42 AM

There was also a study last year showing satellite temp data measurements started diverging from the land based “normalized” data starting in the early 80′s, with a significantly growing gap between them over time. The satellite data showed the temp increase from the late 70′s to late 90′s was less than 0.2 C. And sense then we have cooled an equal amount. The land based “normalized” data has been corrupted beyond useless, it is fraudulent.

The cat’s out of the bag. That is why you now suddenly see Phil F’king Jones actually admitting there has been no warming since 1995. They are not just trying to save what’s left of their career, they are going to be trying to stay out of jail.

ray on February 15, 2010 at 12:53 AM

One weather station is located next to an incinerator, while others have air-conditioning units in close proximity to the instruments

typical for the old style media – day late and a dollar short

RonK on February 15, 2010 at 1:01 AM

No warmth, just a lot of hot air.

meci on February 15, 2010 at 6:38 AM

You can see where this is going, and it isn’t good for AGW enthusiasts — I’m going to cease using the word “scientist” when referring to them from now on.

unclesmrgol on February 15, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Thank you, that would be much appreciated.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Phil Jones, one of the creators of the AGW myth is coming pretty close to recanting.

He know admits that there has been no warming since 1995 and that the mideval warm spell may have been warmer than today.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 7:59 AM

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/02/ipcc-wgi-ch10-projecting-alarm.html

A grand total of 94 authors wrote the latest IPCC report.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM

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.

SteveMG

That doesn’t mean it is, either.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM

The point of my post is that even if one dismisses the surface measurements (which really do seem to be quite unreliable) that others methods show that there has been warming.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM

The satellites in question only went into service after the PDO switched from it’s cool phase to it’s warm phase. No temperature data is worth anything until we have at least a 100 year record. Even that is probably to short.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5