Temperature analysis of 5 datasets shows the 'Great Pause' has endured for 13 years, 4 months

Time to sweep away the flawed, failed IPCC

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

HadCRUT4, always the tardiest of the five global-temperature datasets, has at last coughed up its monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly value for June. So here is a six-monthly update on changes in global temperature since 1950, the year when the IPCC says we might first have begun to affect the climate by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The three established terrestrial temperature dataset that publish global monthly anomalies are GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC. Graphs for each are below.




GISS, as usual, shows more global warming than the others – but not by much. At worst, then, global warming since 1950 has occurred at a rate equivalent to 1.25 [1.1, 1.4] Cº/century. The interval occurs because the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the data are around 0.15 Cº.

The IPCC says it is near certain that we caused at least half of that warming – say, 0.65 [0.5, 0.8] Cº/century equivalent. If the IPCC and the much-tampered temperature records are right, and if there has been no significant downward pressure on global temperatures from natural forcings, we have been causing global warming at an unremarkable central rate of less than two-thirds of a Celsius degree per century.

Roughly speaking, the business-as-usual warming from all greenhouse gases in a century is the same as the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentration. Yet at present the entire interval of warming rates that might have been caused by us falls well below the least value in the predicted climate-sensitivity interval [1.5, 4.5] Cº.

The literature, however, does not provide much in the way of explicit backing for the IPCC’s near-certainty that we caused at least half of the global warming since 1950. Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 0.5% of 11,944 abstracts of papers on climate science and related matters published in the 21 years 1991-2011 had explicitly stated that global warming in recent decades was mostly manmade. Not 97%: just 0.5%.

As I found when I conducted a straw poll of 650 of the most skeptical skeptics on Earth, at the recent Heartland climate conference in Las Vegas, the consensus that Man may have caused some global warming since 1950 is in the region of 100%.

The publication of that result provoked an extraordinary outbreak of fury among climate extremists (as well as one or two grouchy skeptics). For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that “climate deniers” – their hate-speech term for anyone who applies the scientific method to the climate question – do not accept the basic science behind the greenhouse theory.

Now that that pretense is shown to have been false, they are gradually being compelled to accept that, as Alec Rawls has demonstrated in his distinguished series of articles on Keating’s fatuous $30,000 challenge to skeptics to “disprove” the official hypothesis, the true divide between skeptics and extremists is not, repeat not, on the question whether human emissions may cause some warming. It is on the question how much warming we may cause.

On that question, there is little consensus in the reviewed literature. But opinion among the tiny handful of authors who research the “how-much-warming” question is moving rapidly in the direction of little more than 1 Cº warming per CO2 doubling. From the point of view of the profiteers of doom (profiteers indeed: half a dozen enviro-freako lobby groups collected $150 million from the EU alone in eight years), the problem is that 1 Cº is no problem.

Just 1 Cº per doubling of CO2 concentration is simply not enough to require any “climate policy” or “climate action” at all. It requires neither mitigation nor even adaptation: for the eventual global temperature change in response to a quadrupling of CO2 concentration compared with today, after which fossil fuels would run out, would be little more than 2 Cº –well within the natural variability of the climate.

It is also worth comparing the three terrestrial and two satellite datasets from January 1979 to June 2014, the longest period for which all five provide data.






We can now rank the results since 1950 (left) and since 1979 (right):




Next, let us look at the Great Pause – the astonishing absence of any global warming at all for the past decade or two notwithstanding ever-more-rapid rises in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Taken as the mean of all five datasets, the Great Pause has endured for 160 months – i.e., 13 years 4 months:


The knockout blow to the models is delivered by a comparison between the rates of near-term global warming predicted by the IPCC and those that have been observed since.

The IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report, published in 2013, backcast its near-term predictions to 2005 so that they continued from the predictions of the previous Assessment Report published in 2007. One-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming should have happened since 2005, but, on the mean of all five datasets, none has actually occurred:


The divergence between fanciful prediction and measured reality is still more startling if one goes back to the predictions made by the IPCC in its First Assessment Report of 1990:


In 1990 the IPCC said with “substantial confidence” that its medium-term prediction (the orange region on the graph) was correct. It was wrong.

The rate of global warming since 1990, taken as the mean of the three terrestrial datasets, is half what the IPCC had then projected. The trend line of real-world temperature, in bright blue, falls well below the entire orange region representing the interval of near-term global warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990.

The IPCC’s “substantial confidence” had no justification. Events have confirmed that it was misplaced.

These errors in prediction are by no means trivial. The central purpose for which the IPCC was founded was to tell the world how much global warming we might expect. The predictions have repeatedly turned out to have been grievous exaggerations.

It is baffling that each successive IPCC report states with ever-greater “statistical” certainty that most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us when only 0.5% of papers in the reviewed literature explicitly attribute most of that warming to us, and when all IPCC temperature predictions have overshot reality by so wide – and so widening – a margin.

Not one of the models relied upon by the IPCC predicted as its central estimate in 1990 that by today there would be half the warming the IPCC had then predicted. Not one predicted as its central estimate a “pause” in global warming that has now endured for approaching a decade and a half on the average of all five major datasets.

There are now at least two dozen mutually incompatible explanations for these grave and growing discrepancies between prediction and observation. The most likely explanation, however, is very seldom put forward in the reviewed literature, and never in the mainstream news media, most of whom have been very careful never to tell their audiences how poorly the models have been performing.

By Occam’s razor, the simplest of all the explanations is the most likely to be true: namely, that the models are programmed to run far hotter than they should. They have been trained to yield a result profitable to those who operate them.

There is a simple cure for that. Pay the modelers only by results. If global temperature failed to fall anywhere within the projected 5%-95% uncertainty interval, the model in question would cease to be funded.

Likewise, the bastardization of science by the IPCC process, where open frauds are encouraged so long as they further the cause of more funding, and where governments anxious to raise more tax decide the final form of reports that advocate measures to do just that, must be brought at once to an end.

The IPCC never had a useful or legitimate scientific purpose. It was founded for purely political and not scientific reasons. It was flawed. It has failed. Time to sweep it away. It does not even deserve a place in the history books, except as a warning against the globalization of groupthink, and of government.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Data. What a concept.

Really, milord, English??
…For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that ….


In the 21st Century temps have flatlined and CO2 has skyrocketed. Believers do know it’s 2014, just 86 more years to the scary 2100? Maybe their next move will be to adjust CO2 down, then project CO2 to skyrocket with temps.

Alan Robertson

leftturnandre says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Really, milord, English??
“…For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that ….
Who could blame Lord Monckton for adopting North American viewpoints?


Maybe when they adjust CO2 down they will say it went and hid in the deep oceans, and it will come back with a fury making things worse than we first thought. I have a feeling they will play that card within the next 5 years as this great pause has them scrapping the bottom of the idea barrel to keep their agenda alive.

The Warmists yes deserve a place in history: We saw the bad guys of the 20th century,
they will be the bad guys of the 21st century…..

The solar guys among them Habibullo Abdussamatov say we are headed for a little ice age and CO2 plays no factor in climate.


July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm | leftturnandre says:

Really, milord, English??
“…For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that ….

A display of empathy with North American English.

A neat evisceration of the ‘alarmist’ scenario.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the so called ‘protectors of the countryside’ are flailing about over fracking sites that are small and readily shielded by vegetation whilst at the same time supporting bird mashers on every hilltop and in every coastal view with acres of solar panels frying birds in flight in as many formerly green fields as possible.
Meanwhile the fear of ‘peak oil’ is disappearing as technological advances rapidly make vast reserves within the Earth’s crust available for use very cheaply for the indefinite future.
Fossil fuels are making more and more nations wealthy enough to get to the point where individuals can afford to decide to voluntarily reproduce at less than replacement level.
Fossil fuels, in getting people to a position where they choose to have less children are the very means by which long term sustainability can be achieved via a voluntary slow decline in global population after the peak which is expected within the 21st century.
Nuclear energy has been grossly maligned since modern techniques offer increasingly tempting opportunities for huge amounts of relatively cheap energy. Radiation leaks and ‘accidents’ have led to surprisingly small negative consequences compared to the benefits. More people were killed or injured in the primitive 19th century UK coal mining industry than have ever been harmed by the nuclear power industry worldwide.
Plentiful cheap energy is there for the taking but that doesn’t suit certain political interests who regard a free and prosperous population as a threat to their hold on power.
Climate alarmists including Greenpeace et al are, in reality, the enemies of the planet in that they are wilfully and sometimes violently obstructing a natural progression of humanity towards a sustainable accommodation with Gaia.
The Luddites who opposed the industrial revolution were of the same caste of mind.
The world never was created as a paradise, It has been red in tooth and claw from the beginning. Humanity has always been engaged in a desperate struggle for survival against a hostile environment. The Garden of Eden was always a fantasy.
Fossil fuel use is the means by which humanity elevated itself above the viciousness of natural competition for survival and it turns out that there is more than enough energy cheaply available for us to get to a point where we can both live with nature and preserve it.
It is no coincidence that the wealthiest nations have greatest social stability and the most cared for environments.
The Earth’s crust is big enough and deep enough to enable us to achieve that which is necessary and the doomsayers are the main obstacle in our way.
It is time to tell them to go away and preach their negativism elsewhere.
Unfortunately, politicians gain power by fomenting fearfulness and encouraging a dependent electorate. As long as we vote for politicians who tell us that they will protect us from one threat or another then we shall remain slaves.
We get what we deserve.


This appears to be a fair interpretation of the facts which clarifies that there is no reason to panic or spend vast amounts of money preparing for a disaster that is not going to happen. Adaptation to climatic changes as and when required would seem more intelligent.
Does anyone disagree with the data provided or the way it has been analyzed?
I am waiting patiently for a response from Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, referring to similar issues.
Perhaps someone could forward this document to him to encourage him in turn, to respond to me.
I feel embarrassed about harassing him again.
Thank you.
Edward Hurst


I think it should have been “have gotten”. “Gotten” is acceptable in American English, but apparently it is not in British English. “had gotten”… implies that they no longer pretend this is the case. They still persist in their belief that skeptics do not accept the basic science of greenhouse gases.


It is surely time for a collective call to account to be issued – by a single body representing all sceptic organisations, scientists, journalists and blogs, to those responsible for this nonsense: the IPCC, leading alarmists & NGO’s, the national governments of the US, UK, and the EU and to the alarmist media.
It’s time they were held to account for wrongly promoting what are now transparently failed projections, improbable scenarios and impossible outcomes.
AGW theory is dying on the vine right before our eyes. There is not one key indicator that is falling in favour of AGW theory. It’s way past time those responsible for pushing this junk are held responsible.

Lord Monckton, your talk in Las Vegas was spectacular. This paper has also gotten my unwavering praise.


leftturnandre says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Gotten, past participle of “get”. The OED gives it a Middle English origin along with “got.” The OED does indicate the use is largely North American. The preceding “had” actually places it properly in past tense.

Steven Wilde: I have it on testimony of a French Engineer, who I ran across in some contract work, about 10 years ago. A “First Form”, or 7th Grader in France, by the time she or he moves to the UPPER level (i.e., their grade school runs to 7th grade I think) can be asked to go up to a blackboard and draw the Nuclear Power cycle, from Ore to Waste, with everything inbetween as block diagrams, with lines to “link” things. Not really engineering, but like knowing where the spark plugs are, the water pump, the distributor, the transmission, the oil pan, the differential, the gas tank, etc. in a car…makes you a better owner/operator, certainly having a complete concept of the nuclear cycle, Ore to Disposal (after reprocessing), helps you to be a better informed citizen when it comes to choice. I also have it on “bad authority” that an American 7th grader “feels good” about themselves, and can put a condum on a cucumber. Alas, therein lies the problem.


It would be nice to know exactly how the “13 years 4 months” is derived. Just a couple of months ago, Anthony had a couple of posts with “17 years, 10 months” (or so)… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/
At this rate, the pause seems set to disappear by the end of the year 😉


Maybe it’s the average of the data sets that makes the difference? And I noticed that post was much more recent than “a couple of months ago”.


(Sorry, my “very first” post is current awaiting moderation… I comments on a previous post with a 17 year, 10 month pause)

James Abbott

Very interesting. Not only is Lord M moderating his language on the science, he is also being more accurate about the pause.
He says
“Taken as the mean of all five datasets, the Great Pause has endured for 160 months – i.e., 13 years 4 months”.
I agree with that – it started around 2001/2002 and I have been saying so on this site for a long time (and being attacked for it).
Welcome as this is, will Lord M now withdraw his claims of a longer pause based on one data set – eg
No global warming for 17 years, 6 months
Posted on March 4, 2014 by Anthony Watts
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming …”

george e. smith

“””””……leftturnandre says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Really, milord, English??
“…For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that ….
Well lefty,
I believe he said : …….”had gotten” ……
He did not say : …….gotten ……
So there !!
And just for good measure:
I’m sure his Lordship had to have had a perfectly good reason for saying that.
So just try to say that in whatever your language is.


SChessman, RSS data set was the 17 years 10 months. This is the average of 5 data sets. RSS is still 17 years 10 months.

View from the Solent

Duster says:
July 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
leftturnandre says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Gotten, past participle of “get”. The OED gives it a Middle English origin along with “got.” The OED does indicate the use is largely North American. The preceding “had” actually places it properly in past tense.
Indeed. Some USA language usage is closer to that of Shakespeare than is current UK English. There are those in UK who mock the likes of ‘gotten’, displaying their ignorance of how language changes.
See also e.g. ‘dived’ and ‘dove’.

SCheesman and James Abbott question the 17+ years of no global warming. If I may explain…
In 1999, über-Warmist Phil Jones was in an interview. He was asked about the fact that global warming had apparently stopped for the past 2 years. Jones responded that it had stopped, but to be statistically significant, global warming would have to stop for at least fifteen years. Remember that this was from Jones’ own starting date of 1997.
Jones probably felt very secure giving himself another 13 years of wiggle room. But in the event, Planet Earth called his bluff: as of now there has been no global warming for more than 17 years, which takes us back to 1997.
That is why 1997 is often used as the beginning date: it was Phil Jones’ designated starting year.
Now, of course, that date causes immense consternation among climate alarmists. Their own HE-RO, Phil Jones, picked it himself. Some alarmists try to blame skeptics, but anyone familiar with events knows better.
So despite steadily rising CO2, global warming has stopped. Calling it a “pause” is disingenuous, because in order to be a ‘pause’, we would have to be able to look back and see when warming resumed. But it hasn’t. According to satellite data — the most accurate data — global warming stopped in 1997.

Michael John Elliott

Hello, how long will it be before we collectively realise that CO2 is a good gas, and that simple fact is the problem. All the rest is just talk.
Its a giant sized scam, engineeried by persons who want both power and lots of money, expose them for what they are, for example how does “Green” Al Gore actually live, and how many Carbon miles does he clock up. We can then laugh at these wealthy clowns. As for the “Dumb” Greenies, all wanting the warm inner glow, its time that they moved from their Ivory towers and into the real world. Put them naked into a cave in a cold place so they can find out that nature is not like Walt Dysney portraded it.
Michael John Elliott


The raw uncorrected data for all of these series readily accessible, right?
Where can I download it?


Unfortunately I dont believe any of the above data. Recently someone posted here on WUWT a compilation of world reliable class 1 rural surface data worldwide from 1640 showing a 0.46C “warming” per 100 years which absolutely mimicked CET(which I’ve always maintained is the ONLY reliable surface data + Armagh). This I do believe and 0.47C change over a 100 years might as well be 0C in my books! LOL

A good place to download data in chart form is at the WoodForTrees site. He is completely neutral, and does not take sides. As a result, WFT data is accepted and used by both sides of the debate.

george e. smith

“””””…..James Abbott says:
July 29, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Very interesting. Not only is Lord M moderating his language on the science, he is also being more accurate about the pause. ……””””””
Well James, YOU need to be more accurate about YOUR claims.
Christopher’s regular post on “the pause” is based simply on the RSS satellite data set; that is a well known fact.
He has also shown in the past, what happens, if he replaces RSS, with UAH, HADCrud, or GISS, or anything else, and obtained similar results.
He states quite clearly in the present post that he took the average of five data sets.
When you change the data; you change the statistics result.
What is so difficult to understand about this concept.
Statistical results are the immutable exact output obtained by applying standard statistical mathematics algorithms to ANY data set.
It can be your back yard temperature at noon for the last 15 years, or it can be the real telephone numbers in the Manhattan telephone directory, or the number of animals per square km , or even the numero-alphabet character at the right of the top line, on each page of an original edition of “Gone with the Wind.”
Once the dataset is known, the statistics are exactly determinate.
You are welcome to calculate the result yourself, since M of B has told you what the data set is.

Warren in New Zealand

As past participles of get, got and gotten both date back to Middle English. The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English, though even there it is often regarded as non-standard. In North American English, got and gotten are not identical in use. Gotten usually implies the process of obtaining something, as in he had gotten us tickets for the show, while got implies the state of possession or ownership, as in I haven’t got any money.
Although the British stopped using the past participle gotten about three hundred years ago, the American colonists and their descendants–especially in New England–still tend to use it. Some English teachers have tried to ban its usage to make American English conform to British English, especially during the nineteenth and early twentieth century when there was a movement to purify English. Others are just not used to its use because it is not used in their region and hear it as an error. Ultimately, language is convention. If you are writing for a formal audience outside of New England, you might want to use the simple past form got instead. It is like the dictum to never end a sentence with a preposition because that is something some people just will not put–ummm–up with which some people just will not put! Yes. For example: “Since I last saw you, you have gotten big!” Gotten is correct, and very old. In England many people wrongly assume that gotten is a modern Americanism, but the truth is the English more-or-less stopped using it, and have forgotten (!) that they used to use it. That said, “gotten” isn’t good English. In most cases other, more precise and meaningful words should be used in its place. While “have got” sounds wrong to American ears, “have gotten” can usually be replaced by “have become”, and “have been able to” or “have had the chance/opportunity to” would make better sense in other situations.”You would have got along with him” is proper English.
In the UK, the old word “gotten” dropped out of use except in such stock phrases as “ill-gotten” and “gotten up,” but in the US it is frequently used as the past participle of “get.” Sometimes the two are interchangeable, however, “got” implies current possession, as in “I’ve got just five dollars to buy my dinner with.” “Gotten,” in contrast, often implies the process of getting hold of something: “I’ve gotten five dollars for cleaning out Mrs. Quimby’s shed” emphasizing the earning of the money rather than its possession.
Phrases that involve some sort of process usually involve “gotten”: “My grades have gotten better since I moved out of the fraternity.” When you have to leave, you’ve got to go. If you say you’ve “gotten to go” you’re implying someone gave you permission to go.


In increasing order of prevarication the scale goes: lies. damned lies, statistics, and government reports. UN and NGO reports are completely off theprevarication scale, but it would look like a hockey stick at the right end.

I would note that almost the entire range of the IPCC’s 2005 prediction is below that of the 1990 prediction range, yet still above that of reality.

Excellent article Christopher Monckton, excellent.
TinyUrl for this article, http://tinyurl.com/nowarming13yrs4mos.


leftturnandre says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Really, milord, English??
“…For years the true-believers had gotten away with pretending that ….

What’s your opinion on ill-gotten


The “17 years” claim refers (or should refer) to “no significant warming.”

Likewise, the bastardization of science by the IPCC process, where open frauds are encouraged so long as they further the cause of more funding, and where governments anxious to raise more tax decide the final form of reports that advocate measures to do just that, must be brought at once to an end.

I don’t think increased taxation is the main motive. Those in attendance at the SFP meeting are not primarily politicians, but emissaries of the Environmental departments of their governments. (In countries with proportional representation systems, the Greens are usually given control of the Environmental Department as their payoff for being part of a coalition government.) As such, they are full-fledged alarmists, and they are less cautious than scientists about going beyond the data. That is why the final SFP is more alarmist than the draft versions, and omits the embarrassing charts in the earlier drafts, and is more alarmist than the base document.

Hot d@mn, my tomato plants on the subtropical Fraser Coast are stunted weeds, because the weather has been too cold for them to grow. I was hoping for at least a *little* global warming this year… 🙂


The debates shifted to the ocean.

Bruce Cobb

Hmmm…13 years four months = length of “the pause” using tampered,fudged, and warm-biased data sets vs 17 years 10 months using a single pristine data set. Which to choose?
Decisions decisions.

James Abbott

dbstealey you “explain” nothing. What Phil Jones said in 1999 is completely irrelevant to the content of Lord M’s interesting article – which happens to back up what I have been saying for some time (ie the pause started in 2002) – and which you (along with others) have regularly attacked.
george e. smith you miss the point entirely. Lord M’s (more realistic) analysis is based on taking the 5 data sets together which cover both satellite and terrestrial temperature measurements – as opposed to the single RSS data set (satellite sensing of atmospheric temperature in various altitude bands) which happens to give a favoured result for those looking for the least warming.


AS a matter of historical interest, the use of the word gotten has an honourable mention in one of the finest examples of sublime English Language, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662.
In the rubrics at the end of the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion the following instruction is given: “And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.”
I am sure the Pilgrim Fathers would have taken many Lincolnshire words and phrases which have survived in the current American culture.

Harry Minns, North Street, Caistor.


The term: THE GREAT PAUSE is stupendous. It implies that it will continue,
because this pause will be really great and long….. see my references JS


I admire the IPCC. There would hardly be a debate or skeptics without them. And look how much we’ve learned.

@dbStealey – WFT is indeed used by both sides – at least those concerned with data. I have found most alarmists quote authority and ignore the data.


Lord Monckton said, “It [IPCC] does not even deserve a place in the history books, except as a warning against the globalization of groupthink, and of government.”
My response, ” Hear, hear!!! Well done!!”

Arno Arrak

I have two beefs with these data-sets. The first one is that it is asinine to draw a straight line through the data from 1950 to 2014. If you want to show this temperature range, don’t be lazy and analyze the the temperature changes taking place in this temperature regime. As a corollary, there is not sufficient detail visible to do it well because the horizontal scale is too compressed. The second one is that all three ground-based data-sets still feature the phony computer processing traces I have from time to time pointed out. What happened is that the three global temperature sources considered in this article have been cooperating to fix the global temperature curve to their liking. Their first move was to change an eighteen year temperature stretch in the eighties and nineties from no warming to warming and dedicate it as “late twentieth century warming. Satellite data show that there was no warming from 1979 to 1997 but their temperature curve shows a rise of 0.1 degrees Celsius between these two points. That they cooperated in fixing this temperature came out accidentally because they screwed up. What happened is that they used computer processing on all three data-sets using the same equipment. As an unanticipated consequence of this operation it left traces of itself in the finished product. These consist of sharp upward-pointing spikes at the beginnings of years in their published curves. You are showing all three data-sets as well as UAH and RSS satellite curves in this article You should have no trouble recognizing these inserts by comparing satellite and ground-based data. The most prominent of these phony spikes in GISS are located at years 1987, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2007, and 2008. There are others harder to find. They happen to be at the exact same locations in all three databases. The ones at 1998 and 1999 are attached to the super El Nino of 1998 which becomes a tenth of a degree higher than it is.
This kind of manipulation is exactly what Michael Crichton was afraid of would happen when he spoke to the United States Senate in 2005: “…let me tell you a story. It’s 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He’s a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It’s a double-blind study involving four separate teams—one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assess the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million-dollar study invalid because of this contact.
For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. A striking feature of climate science is that it’s permissible for raw data to be “touched,” or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.”


PS to my comment of 4:41 pm above. All the governmental delegates at the Summary For Policymakers meetings who come from developing nations (a majority of delegates) have an additional motive for alarmism: the transfer payments they hope to get from the knock-on effects of an alarmist report.


Bloomberg’s Roston tries a new tack!
29 July: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Ten U.S. Cities Where Flooding Is Much More Common
Those who dismiss global warming projections might at least note that change has already become a nuisance…
Enjoy climate change while it’s still a nuisance.

Curious George

[IPCC AR5] conclusions have been reached with high statistical confidence by a working group made up of many of the world’s leading climate scientists drawing on areas of well-understood science – UK House of Commons report on IPCC AR5.
What is a statistical confidence? In science you determine it in two steps:
1. Form a hypothesis (“conclusion” in IPCC jargon).
2. Test it against available data. The more data you have the more confidence you may get. There are formulas to compute a confidence level from a number of observations supporting or opposing the hypothesis.
Please note that a statistical confidence has nothing to do with a size of a working group, or the number of leading climate scientists in it. “IPCC confidence” might be a better term.

Gary Pearse

And this reckoning is based on admitted fiddling of the temp record that is presently built into the algorithms of the main record keepers. Temperatures a hundred years ago are likely >0.3 C and climbing warmer than the reworked figures.


“Get” also has roots in old Norse and German words having similar meaning. The global spread of English is due in part to its large vocabulary which comes from the lack of strict rules for admitting new words into the dictionary – like the French tend to do. An ugly, but complex grammar also may help the spread of English as it facilitates expressing complex thoughts.

Arno Arrak

I will go along with thirteen years, four months. I always wondered why others wanted to include the period covered by the super El Nino of 1998 because it is simply a different kind of temperature regime. If you study the satellite data carefully you will see that on both sides of the super El Nino are narrow La Nina valleys. The one on the right starts to form a new El Nino peak but strangely overshoots its mark and ends up a third of a degree higher than I expected. This is an unexpected step warming that created the no-warming platform we now inhabit. And instead of another El Nino peak we got a seven year, basically flat, temperature platform until the La Nina of 2008 finally showed up. (That is the one that Trenberth did not understand!). I put it all down to the extra warm water which the huge super El Nino brought over but the flat mean temperature persisted and here we are, trying to understand why the temperature did not go down when the century started.