An Aesop's fable here.

Observation of primary data makes all secondary data dependent on it, where the media and politicians treat it all as equal, so for instance are happy to report hot weather when it's getting colder overall. But the single primary figure which became clear some time ago is the official temperature rise relative to CO2.

CO2 rise: 50%
Temperature rise o.8C (half attributed to CO2).

Expected bare rise with no feedback 0.5C

Therefore with a 50% rise in CO2 temperatures have risen no more than 0.8C, implying a slight negative feedback.

NASA have just caught up.

NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise

It took them a few years but they have finally agreed that is pretty well the sole possible conclusion. They are second in command to the IPCC so still uncertain whether this will be taken up by the masters.

Finally what I noticed years ago has been proved in a paper. The adjustments systematically made to data are literally warmed up. It's the same as banks, when they make genuine mistakes they even out to near zero (or 50% between positive and negative) and these were meant to as do all honest errors. These were found to be positive in 67% of all data.

“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

---------------------

This means the biased data adjustments increased the probable actual temperatures by around 75%, meaning they were no higher than they were meant to be, so the 'unprecedented warming' claimed only possible to be from man made CO2 may not actually have ever existed.

Here it is

I'd say if nothing else don't those claiming I'm running a campaign against science accept this raises reasonable doubts?

This material is speeding up, but one topic per box.

IPCC mainly not peer reviewed and many political appointments

Following a long investigation by the IAC, an official independent body, the findings of the IPCC were:

"The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians."

They are actually following the recommendations and claim to have completed the process on June the 27th this year. I haven't seen any results yet, and certainly no reports elsewhere, but they have been pretty much busted officially.

I may have posted part of this before but new people read every day and I've been reading more and can now include the quote in its context. I also read some older material from the 20s and 30s and very little had been altered besides the names and places. Fascinating.

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…

Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself.”

- “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome.

In order to understand science you really need to know politics, economics and history. In science a pattern has regularly formed where an individual or small group come up with a totally opposite view to the 'consensus', like the earth revolving round the sun or stomach ulcers being caused by a bacteria, and then after decades of ridicule or more someone equipped to do so suddenly finds they were right all along.

Like this time:

CO2 is a result of warming

Apparently some years after first discovered by a handful of independent experts working alone Copenhagen University have now discovered the CO2 in a warm phase is released hundreds of years ahead of the warming. Just as the others said already, why didn't anyone listen to them before?

Of course if this goes viral and people discover CO2 is rising from events hundreds of years ago the whole mechanism to prevent it being released now would become redundant. And when it doesn't why not?

You gotta love Stephen Colbert and his "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. Last night he cited a report by scientists that claimed watching late night talk shows (which his show is) causes people to become despondent. So he checked the science of the claim! Turns out the scientists dimmed the ambient lighting for an hour before completely turning out the lights on ... get this ... hamsters! The lab people had measured changed brainwave activity in the animals after the exposure to that regimen. That's fine but the scientists made the leap on their own, without previous proof, that the symptoms they saw in the hamsters equated to despondancy in humans. They leapt from dimming the lights on rodents to despondent humans in one jump.
I say they failed to control the stimulation some light dimming can cause in humans who watch late night talk shows and are intrigued by what they see. All the hamsters got was dim lights. Wouldn't that depress you too? If the lab people had released different types of pheremones during the lighting changes, then just maybe and only maybe, there might have been a connection to be made. (I wonder how the scientists, I hate to call them that, introduced the commercial advertisement aspect to a dimmed light?)

I'm a skeptic about most things that "make the news", particularly when politicians get involved in areas they really know NOTHING about. And, it would seem, try to bully scientists to provide data that suits their agenda (which seems to be making money while they can). I don't argue with the data ITSELF (glacial melting etc are very REAL events), but rather HOW that data is applied. All "stats" students know that any numbers can be "manipulated". In business, it's called "creative accounting" lol.

There is little doubt that previous politicians who owned xbazillions of shares in the oil industry sought to protect that vested interest by kyboshing (by LAW, in many cases around the world) numerous patents/practical usage for alternate energy sources. I see the global warming "issue" in a similar way. Scare tactics followed by people who are rich enough to buy out all the patents that were previously squashed (thereby assuring them and their heirs additional multimillions if/when the oil craze falls through). I would LIKE to think the general populace wouldn't fall for 75% of the hype, but I've been wrong before lol.

There is NO denying that the planet is in a warming phase currently. Whether that is solely caused by humans is an ENTIRELY different matter. A polar shift could result in the same thing (and the Earth is moving towards one either this year or in the next few).

There is NO denying that humans ARE destroying the planet's resources and wildlife in hundreds of ways. These selfish actions could well bring an end to life (as humans know it currently), but whether those actions will bring an end to the planet itself is QUITE doubtful.

NASA itself, has reported that ALL of the planets have been experiencing a warming trend over the last 20 years. Unless you can verify that there are greedy life-forms on planets other than ours, the most likely reason for this trend is increased solar activity (which "we", as "important" as we like to think we are in "the grand scheme of things" have absolutely no control over).

CNN picked up on the hamster study today and reported in more detail. It was a study done by the University of Ohio. The scientists actually went beyond the simple despondent reaction Colbert reported. The grant spenders actually used the term depression in their paper as the reaction of the hamsters. Since depression is a psychological term, seems they also jumped the shark going the other way and attributed human emotions to hamsters.

Jakerroo, our solar system is not a closed system. There could be extra-solar influences causing the general temperature of system objects to rise. We could be travelling through a galactic dust cloud (light fog) that is raising atmosphere temps by nano-collision, the increased solar output you cited or a combination of the two if the noted increases are real because there is the chance also that the measurements are wrong.

A quick recap of climate controversy history. For years now isolated scientists have said three things (at least) which in total claimed the IPCC had got their models wrong. The climate was not very sensitive to CO2, CO2 rose gradually after the temperature had throughout history and the major cause of temperature changes are solar activity and the tilt of the earth and distance from the sun.

This month studies have come back showing the likely amount of rise from a doubling of CO2 would be 1.64C, CO2 has always risen after temperature at a standard rate of delay from millions of years of deep ice cores which preserved the atmosphere going back that far, and now the full set of three, the climate is far more sensitive to small changes in solar activity than they originally thought- the IPCC don't even factor it in to their own equations as they say it is infinitesimal.

Until today that is:

Here it is

"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."

-----------------------------

Now having been a lecturer in the past I am very happy to lecture, and for the last however many years when my claims here have been attacked time and time again, as if the IPCC say it then it has to be right, have gradually and patiently all been supported by the top sources, NASA, the Nils Bohr Institute and now a top geologist. Science does not decide, it evolves. If you simply make a decision that shuts the door to all new data, actually having the effect of rejecting any new material which can't be right as it contradicts the existing theory. Science till now had never done that besides isolated examples where personal interests were involved, or the mainstream simply couldn't believe the new findings were possible, as with quasi crystals, which won the finder a Nobel Prize for beating the system.

The vast majority of the reason the IPCC and related agencies got it all so wrong and others at the time called them on it was nearly all their material was not climate based at all, but based on computer simulations of injecting CO2 into the climate at various levels. Now a few experts such as Steve McIntyre ran these projections back before the present and found the simulations didn't get the past right, so were all impossible to rely on as they were incapable of fitting with known reality. One by one melting Himalayan glaciers (200 million tons of ice a year I think) were found to have lost none, and then claims turned down in unison are now becoming found to be real simply because someone has taken the time to check and find out.

Therefore when the money can be found to fund such studies in the field one by one with absolutely no prior expectations these genuine scientists are simply doing what they always have done, being asked a question and looking for the answer with the best existing equipment. So how many new studies discovering that CO2 is not actually capable of doing anything more than a slight increase within the normal range will it take combined before anyone starts to notice?

mehaul: I have no desire to debate the "nuances" of the universe as a whole. I simply don't know enough about it. And neither do most people. But I'm quite certain humans don't have any influence on it regardless of closed systems, dust clouds or any other intergalactic detritus that may or may not result in what we are experiencing at present. I believe that was the MAIN point I was trying to express LOL

So you don't believe in, or can I convince you of, the interstellar sub-atomic heat hamster theory of global warming? Would five bucks swing the deal?

Sorry, I can't be "bought". But I quite adore hamsters LOL!

Jakeroo, I have learnt a huge amount about logic and academic process on my decade plus long investigation into global warming. The simple conclusions are there is a level above science and every other academic field, simply called logic. That means everyone able to use it is capable of judging other fields given understandable data. Otherwise we wouldn't use juries trying cases in every other field but using expert witnesses, and even the lawyers wouldn't be able to present cases in specialised areas such as medical negligence and building regulations etc, but they do and always have.

The models I was shown online this week of a climate system were clearly beyond anyone outside the field to understand as the equivalent of looking at the code behind the forum here. Someone else read it and pulled out about five major errors, meaning the model had doubled some parameters and multiplied others into monsters from mice. The scientists here are able to look at a plan or model and see how it performs, as they were trained to do so. So if an engineer looks at an engine blueprint they can easily assess the performance and any errors in it, but anyone can use it and experience it directly. Therefore although the scientist is able to judge data at the level of creation, everyone else can at the level of production, and both will experience the same engine performance whether in their heads or in their cars.

Therefore with the climate we are not talking about anything beyond logic and involving complex maths. In fact in an interview once a climatologist said the same thing, stating that as CO2 had gone up so much and the temperature was going up as well everything else was irrelevant as the two facts alone were enough to prove the theory. Now two things applied there, firstly the absolutely correct statement that this can be simplified for all to understand, and secondly they didn't use logic as correlation alone is not causation and the actual figures he referred to were in their models as there simply hasn't been enough time to run the experiment in the real world. But he knew everyone could follow these areas, had he been accurate in his description of them.

That was a few years ago and the new data constantly arriving now has refined and twisted the scenario greatly- for a start the powers that be have now finally started talking about why the temperature hasn't risen for 15 years, after spending the last 5 or so denying they hadn't risen. The explanations are so varied it would take Inspector Morse a whole episode to work his way through them, and fail to address the single nub of the argument that man made global warming needs an unusually high rise in temperature to exist, which hasn't happened. The models had it even with no rise in CO2, and it didn't happen. So gradually logic is overriding the silly imaginary exercises in their hard drives, and my personal statement to climate modellers is can a computer model a human mind, and if not when will it be able to? Of course the unanimous consensus is no, and I reply then how is the world climate any less complex and able to model either? I haven't had an answer to that yet.

The hockey stick diagram, at least the US figures, have now been proved mathematically (through discovering the original data and comparing it with what we were shown) to follow the adjustments for the exact period of the hockey stick part, take them away and the temperature has fallen in the same period. I don't know if either the press has picked this one up or anyone will be questioned over it (as if anyone would try), but the current estimate is that this most likely applies to the whole diagram, but the original figures are injuncted so currently impossible to prove. Secondly, how many other vital pieces of scientific data required for our own wellbeing have been legally made secret?

Moving diagram before and after

It also applies to Alice Springs and Reykjavik, so clearly not an 'isolated' incident, as far as a continent can be described as such.

I am wondering if and when someone's up for an interrogation over this- if any other authority (in this case a national organisation) was found to be doing anything like this then it would be immediately suspended pending a major enquiry, except in climate cases. Like the secret data, again that doesn't sound right.

I will hand this one over to the scientists, I am only reporting exactly what has been compiled as what appears to be a mathematical certainty. These are based on physical properties rather than climate models, and mean everything in the climate models is completely impossible.

CO2 cannot add warming when increased

I am quite open to analysis not being more than a messenger. How can the IPCC expect huge amounts of warming from two gases apparently incapable of trapping much more already? These are the reasons I post all this, none of our politicians mention it when making new laws raising energy prices to reduce the usage (it doesn't as people just spend less on other things they don't need). The war against CO2 must be phony if these figures are true, and they're not the first time I've seen them mentioned.

Here's some real old fashioned science. Simple observation and statistical analysis. The earth always wobbles on its axis, and as a result the ocean has a few different currents over the short and medium (60 years in this case) terms, which repeat reliably and have now been demonstrated to correlate at 85% whereas CO2 and temperatures over the same period work out at 44%. Without the need to go all complicated and bring in forcing, back radiation etc, you can clearly see just from the graphs and correlations that of the two, CO2 does not particularly match the temperature line where the oscillations follow it faithfully.

On a happier note anyone still concerned about global warming will also see the temperature has not risen for 15 years so far, and however long people need to infer a trend none of the models showed it slowing down at any point as it has. The CO2 does not slow down, it is rising steadily but now getting further and further from the temperature each year. There is absolutely no need to be a scientist to get this, it's no different from doing your accounts.

Temperature follows ocean current cycles

Anyone not financially involved with the climate industry ought to see this (as I do) as extremely good news as it implies if nothing else the variations in temperature are very unlikely to be CO2 related.

I've added in the latest graph from 1997-2012. You can clearly see it's almost flat, and take away the 1998 El Nino spike and the tiny slope would be gone.

1997-2012 world temperature variation

Here's the latest one in even more detail. It contains a complete hockey stick, but it's the adjustments. Take them away and it's all gone. I'd call that busted in any other context where the perpetrators don't make the rules and enforce them as well.

Dear oh dear oh dear, where's the hockey stick gone?

In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”

"Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”

“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote."

"They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020." (the dog ate my homework, big book of excuses p 32)

If nothing else, no one can call me a denier now until at least 2020 so I can safely say, on the authority of the top man himself,

There is currently no global warming.

Here it is

We were told the second set of climate emails was massive and would be released gradually. This is the next set released today. It seems many of the community are quite rattled about how hard they need to work both to keep the public onside and to make sure the wrong data doesn't get into the general media. I've never seen another scientist behave like this, and if you work your way through these properly anyone without shares in the industry will start to realise that's not how normal business is carried out. You simply don't need to make such efforts to get your message across if you're in science, that's reserved for politics and PR, and at its lowest gutter level at that. I must say after being fascinated by science all my life these guys have wrecked its credibility almost totally for me, as hardly any of their non-climate but qualified peers have dared to pick them up on what is clearly not scientific method.

Even more dirt

As this is still the tip of the iceberg as thousands are waiting in the wings, how much of their own private conversations do people need to see before it's obvious to everyone not related to them they are cooking the books?

eg:

Trenberth see’s Ben Santer’s paper published in Science as having “substantial problems”, due to spurious artifacts introduced by radiosonde equipment changes over time making the ERA-15 data “corrupted” in Trenberth’s words. Two words sum the problem up: temporal inhomogeneity.

Therefore one of the top men in the business, Kevin Trenberth, has seen a huge error reach the world's science community and kept it to himself. That's mafia tactics, not scientific method.

As expected the new material is flooding out now, and latest emails reveal pretty much explanations both how the hockey stick was made (pretty much the sole reason CO2 rises were associated with its rise in temperature many others hadn't found for the same period) and better still open admissions they had found many areas open to simple alterations. Phil Jones, who just claimed in an interview (on the BBC of course) that as 90% of scientists have agreed in man made warming there should be no more opposition allowed in the media, was actually the one who revealed it was made using “value added homogenized data.”

How and why anyone can still try and defend the hockey stick, and as a result the whole man made theory based almost totally upon it is a mystery except for my knowledge of psychology telling me fear beats intellect and peer pressure makes most people follow the pack and ostracise outsiders until they are found to be correct when the tide turns and goes the other way.

These growing revelations must make neutral readers at least somewhat concerned that it is not possible to have so many instances of bad practice clearly exposed without devaluing the whole area. And if not, then what will it take for people to realise something's not right before they question the status quo (and each day is costing us more in higher taxes, solely on the basis that cheap fuel is bad for the planet, my bottom).

This is how they did it, including some direct confessions

Someone has gone to the trouble to work out what it looked like before adjustment, quite fascinating. Seems our current record temperatures are gone, and when it was known by everyone except Michael Mann and his vast band of followers it was hotter in the 1400s (plenty of documented and physical evidence worldwide, people wrote then as well) it was both very good for the planet, and not man made. If this graph is accurate (and I suspect it is) we have had the mother of all cons imposed on us for the last 30 years and nearly everyone still believes it. Maybe if more people checked the stories they read in the papers as I chose to out of personal interest they wouldn't have let it continue unabated.

Really?

Surely not?

Yes, really!

How do they get so many different results but only use one officially? How would you like your accountant to do that?

There is an absolutely fixed formula for commonly held beliefs. First a few intuitive people start to notice there may be other explanations, then they are ridiculed, insulted and possibly even prosecuted or killed. Then new evidence appears gradually showing what they claimed was actually the case well in advance, until there is enough evidence for the weight to become overwhelming, a belief becomes converted to a known, and then people tend to forget it was ever any other way, from the sun revolving round the earth to stomach ulcers being caused by stress.

So after over a decade of small isolated voices reading the graphs (far easier than equations) and noticing CO2 always rose some time after the temperature as it was released by the ocean gradually, not before. A new paper now has tracked the cycle from the ocean to the atmosphere, meaning the heat is being created in the exact opposite way as claimed before, and impossible to be from the small amounts we emit here as all been shown to be natural. Of course in climatology every new study has an old one which disagrees, another reason I simply don't believe it's safe to be relied on to make world policies, and until the equipment and methods are good enough to overall agree nothing should be relied upon to that level:

The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The combined efforts of three Norwegian universities

I will add we only produce around 3% of CO2, which always concerned me how that could then be blamed on us. That's common sense to me but not many people seem to share this with me.

I think this is a first. Having posted the study showing the US temperature estimates had been around double the actual figures once the adjustments had been painstakingly removed and found to be consistently high (while supposed to be filtering out the heating effects of urban heat islands), the NOAA, the US official meterological institution, has done their own measurements using 114 brand new rural stations which are all identical so there's no need to adjust anything but take their direct readings. They can now confirm the outside critique was correct, as the previous readings were reduced by 2.1F

Not only was this found to be the case once adjustments and local variations had been eliminated at source rather than post-processed, but conceded this probably applies worldwide seeing as the surface measurements are all done the same way.

Somehow the recent warming appears to have vanished, the 2.1F reduction means there has been pretty much none at all. I wonder how the press will justify not reporting this seeing as it is the most official data they will ever receive?

Independent measurements confirm heat bias

They're still at it

US temperatures, before and after

The US not only has the most weather stations in the world, but if these methods represent standard practise, I can reliably say 'There is no global warming', and if not can still for the US which covers many more readings than elsewhere. This is not standard scientific routine, quite the opposite.

I've seen various references to how the hockey stick diagram was built, making sure what started as flat temperatures over the recent centuries sloped up at the top, and now have a complete summary. When we are accused of cherry picking, in fact the only reason this argument exists is Michael Mann selected about 5% of Siberian tree ring sets which showed what he was looking for, and cobbled them into the data so they skewed the results in the way he needed. It goes on to explain how the enquiries didn't even have much of the data available, and stacked the juries with interested parties not normally permitted under British law (or any other).

Here's the complete picture, bearing in mind spaces had been completed by the methods discussed in their hacked emails, which under a police examination would have been part of the forensic enquiry, and always required as part of the greater public interest if being used for making public policy as this has been.

----------------------------------------
The hockey stick graph at the center of this dispute was based heavily upon data taken from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Created by Mann and his colleagues, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years until the 20th century, and then suddenly rocketed off the charts (attributing this to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions). That image was featured to support urgency of a cap on carbon dioxide through the Kyoto Protocol which was being pushed at the time by Al Gore and the United Nations. It prominently and repeatedly appeared in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

QED

Here it is

The funny thing is the majority of rebuttals I have when I post these articles is about the publication and author of them rather than the material itself. That is telling in itself. I have never actually heard of Forbes besides in the lyrics of a recent record so have no idea or interest in who they are, who funds them and who reads them. Only the two paragraphs I have added matter as they are independent of any messenger.

I recently read a magazine who claimed the temperature rise from 1850 was 1.4C, double the accepted amount. I didn't bother to try and follow it up as all it did was demonstrate how utterly simple it is to basically provide your personal figures with no or little question. But I was curious to know where the figure was possibly obtained in error, and discovered why the IPCC estimates for temperatures in 2100 were so high yet the 2010 figures were way below expected in 1990. They doubled the sensitivity equation in 1990, kept the graph based on it, and means the actual temperatures are double what they should be, which would peak around 3C and trough near zero. The mid point which is by far the likeliest as the wider the error bar the less likely the result would then be around 1.5C rise at current CO2 increases around 5-600ppm, which are within the area where the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. That was from their own report which the reporters clearly haven't read as besides the obvious benefits of more food and fewer deaths from cold (more people always die of cold than heat within normal ranges) extreme weather events can never be attributed to global warming as the connection can't be judged well enough.

The certainty the politicians and media provide is not official. They all unanimously quote IPCC reports as no one else is authorised to provide official data. There is plenty more, most of which claims their connection between CO2 and a rising temperature is not proven or important, but they are not part of what the IPCC is using, so go largely unnoticed outside the skeptical community online, although by independent and equally qualified and equipped scientists. None of the adjustments discovered previously have ever been challenged at an official level, just dismissed as the actions of an anti-science hit squad, despite being found by professional statisticians. In fact there is no official channel to question the data, if someone important enough takes the material to the source the best they get is an internal enquiry, the one on the hacked emails didn't even present the papers in question so there was actually no enquiry at all since the doctored material hadn't been taken to it.

This does not happen in many other areas of science, and if such uncertainty was present in accounts people would be prosecuted, and architecture people would risk dying in dangerous buildings. These errors are far greater than any either made in business or engineering, since the tolerances required for building houses or bridges are so small anything outside would probably wreck the careers of anyone caught doing so, but when it's just weather reports it seems the boundaries are far wider and more liberal.

Even I can understand these sums!

It is utterly pointless if you are going to try and alter data to get the results you want as it is still impossible to remove every trace of the same data before you did so. So yet again, a pre-Hansen/Mann graph appears showing before he made the hockey stick the temperature had actually dropped between 1940 and 1970.

Whatever has happened since they made the graph in the early 90s, unlike the sets above where they took flat raw data and made them erect (the temperature Viagra effect) this has gone a step further, equalled only by the IPCC's removal of the similar graph in 1995 where they happily displayed the widely accepted medieval warm period, by actually having to ignore (and hope no one noticed it) the actual data know for the period already. This beats anything they've been found to do by a country mile.

Get out of this one?

On the general point, when you do not just get caught making dubious adjustments (eg raising temperatures when allowing for urban heat islands) but rewriting existing accepted climate history, how can anyone retain confidence in anything else they say? The reason I say this is very simple. A PhD statistician can easily explain their way out of adjustments with terms you and I have never heard of and would need an equal level of study to understand. But simply using a different set of temperatures for a period already written is something a five year old could understand and question. From a constitutional point of view it means when such items are exposed and nothing happens that he must be working for those who would otherwise enforce the rules. If not then why does it conclude with a handful of interested parties discussing it on the internet while James Hansen continues to run the US climate research at its head. Surely if it is questionable at the very highest level it must reflect everywhere lower down?

This is definitely not a scientific point or question but a simple logical one everyone is able to see. Can anyone think of a single explanation for this and the loss of the MWP in the identical way by his own employers? As above, so below. As commented at the end of the piece:

"The real crime here is the silence from so many others in the “climate science community”"

Very odd, first the medieval warm period vanishes, and now despite removing it, the very same diagram has surfaced and while it still shows the hockey stick and shrunken MWP, it also goes back 10,000 years and reveals a climatic optimum where the temperature 4-8000 years ago was actually about 0.5C above the present. No floods, disasters or other events expected by Al Gore materialised, history confirms business as usual with wine grapes in Britain and healthy crops across the temperate zones.

If history shows thousands of years of living with higher temperatures then what is the need to work out what it might be like, and why do they keep saying it's never been as warm as it is now, just because their usual diagram stops in year 0 and has flattened out the middle and raised the end (as the IPCC changed their original diagram in 1991 replacing it with one which had been photoshopped) they just use the useful bit but the rest of it which has been conveniently discarded remains for all to see here:

Full timeframe

So why do the IPCC say 'hottest year ever' whenever the current short sample period peaks, and show concern about even the (unknown) melting ice etc from even today's levels? I say unknown as world ice is stubbornly refusing to reduce despite the incredibly well publicised recent Arctic melt, probably known about in the rain forests of Central America and furthest flung Pacific islands, yet the fact the same event was evenly balanced by a record high Antarctic ice level is no doubt news to every single person reading it here. That's called spin to you and me.

Wow, anti-science? Me?

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Margaret Mead 1974

1974 conference report

It's a busy week for sure!

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present the evidence to you from 2010 and 2012. When the temperature rises what does ice do? Even as a lawyer I would say I and you as well are qualified to know it melts. As they said in 2010:

"The latest evidence is from the US Geological Survey, which said its research is the first to document that every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990."

Antarctic ice is melting

Yet two years later the Antarctic ice (over 90% of total) is at record levels, and the same people (as they mainly work together and share their material and send it to the UN), and this was their response to the photo of, well, an ice cap:

"The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say."

Changed the rules

----------------
See the trick? When the ice was melting (we have been warming up for hundreds of years, long before fossil fuels were burnt in volume) it was 'man made' when they wanted it to be, but after over 10 years of flat temperatures and the ice dares to stop melting and begins to freeze again, the explanation is identical then unless there has been a vast breakthrough in climate science in the intervening two years it appears that the conclusion has actually been decided before and regardless of the events. Can there be any other possibility?

A week after being released on the internet, the Daily Mail was the first (and only?) paper to release the official temperature record showing a 16 year wavy line starting and finishing in exactly the same place. Many people knew about it online of course but we are a small bunch and not enough to make a difference. But the biggest event of all was Phil Jones, one of the heads of the department who issued them, who openly admitted they do not know the influences of oceanic and solar cycles.

I and many more have been claiming this for years, he has now admitted it (along with the implication the models are trashed, as it was about 0.5C below the lowest estimate) so why is it even an issue as any warming we did have (in 20 year cycles on average with cooling between them) is at least as likely to have been natural anyway regardless of how it was presented.

How does such an admission go over the heads of apparently all politicians, who are the only ones empowered to inflict policies on us even when their main contributor has just admitted they are based on virtually no understanding at all. You don't get that in any other profession.

article

If this is what it took to get them to admit their genuine failings then the temperature itself was secondary as it cast doubt on all their other claims totally- Dr Jones was not speaking for himself, the quote was

"Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

Would you continue to accept anything else they have said after that, and if so why?

I feel like a storyteller here. Once upon a time a bunch of scientists got together, and between them made a potion of figures and measurements which when put together made a hockey stick. The trouble was when anyone tried to use it it changed shape and wouldn't work, but no one else could replace it and everyone was forced to try and use it even though it never seemed to be stable enough to work.

Many years later, although one of his tricks was required to create it, by casting a spell over hundreds of tree rings to make all but a few disappear and use them to both raise the tip of the hockey stick, and then vanish in a tangle of lines when it started heading the wrong way, Keith Briffa saw the angry clouds of fate heading his way, threatening to rain on his chips and make his hockey stick so soggy it could melt away. To quickly get out of the path he and two colleagues went back to the spell and took out all the funny incantations, such as 'abracadabra and alakazam, make these rings for Michael Mann' or 'by the powers of Greyskull make these threes into sevens' and the like, leaving only the boring stuff like 'one and one is two, two and two is four' etc, which is deadly dull but impossible to question.

And then they concluded the trick was only an illusion and should not be relied on. He is probably going to be awarded a halo for this redeeming action, and had they not been part of the same illusion a Nobel Prize. I may even send him a Christmas card myself now.

Changed their minds, changed the climate

Here be the summary:

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.


Michael Mann, the official owner of the hockey stick, has yet to answer the revised decision, although it is only but hours old. My bet is he isn't going to though, and for the double no one's going to ask him. Not even Keith, he's already off the hook.