Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ‘pause’ in warming

By Maxim Lott

Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.

But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.

“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.

And in an interview, Curry told that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.

“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”

Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.

But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else.

“Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote.

Full story here

210 thoughts on “Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ‘pause’ in warming

  1. “Steve Goddard” has been documenting the blatant false adjustments to global temperatures that has been going on for years by these so-called NOAA scientists… Cooling the past and warming the present. It has reached the stage where it is laughable now. But still, the mainstream media laps up the propaganda that is being dished out by the warmists.

      • looking at the above graphs it is clear that:

        1. the run up in temps from 1910 to 1945 are nearly 1 full degree before the corrections, which is double the warming from 1945 to today. yet everyone agrees that the increase from 1910 to 1945 cannot be due to CO2.

        2. Natural variability without corrections before CO2 is as much as 1 full degree over 35 years, which is 3 degrees per century. While the period from 1945 to today with CO2 shows only 0.5 degree of warming over 70 years, which is 0.75 degrees per century.

        3. Thus the only conclusion that is possible is that CO2 prevented warming that would have occurred naturally.

      • Phil, I’m always interested in a answer to this question from the Warmist Camp:
        The vertical on those graphs is labeled as “Temperature Anomaly” with plus/minus zero. So, what is the exact, perfect temperature of the Zero line, and how do you know that either side is anomalous?

      • If these Karl et al. corrections significantly warm the past (pre-1940), and only modestly warm the present (post 2005), then there’s been significantly less observed ΔT.

        I can’t help but wonder about the implications for climate sensitivity…

      • James, and equally interesting to ask that question of climate model results where the absolute temp for 1961-1990 of the globe they variously model ranges over 2.5 C (CMIP5) and nearly 5 C (EMIC).

      • Consider the years prior to 1940 where both new and old corrections are negative. Why, in the second graph, does the “without corrections” line lie below the “with corrections” line if the “corrections” are negative?

      • Looks like they ‘corrected’ the last 15 years upwards and the past downwards. Good way to manufacture an upward trend that doesn’t exist.

      • Yes, I see it. About 1-2 degrees per century. Everyone should understand that the global temperature changes.

      • Phil? Like Phil Jones? Phil, if that is you, and the earth does not soon boil like a pan on a burner set to high, I suggest you get a lawyer. Why? RICO (look it up). Your political and “enviro” support will evaporate. You and all the others will be asked to account for wasting billions and billions of dollars and man-hours due to fraud and collective collusion. For your sake, I hope your young doctoral students and post-docs stand up to interviews by the FBI. However, I think they will sing.

      • Phil.
        June 9, 2015 at 12:28 pm

        Well that isn’t the case here is it?
        nope, the case here is that climate scientists can not tell temp in real time…..

        Which means that no matter what they say the slope, temp increase, global warming is….right now
        …it does not mean a thing

      • Phil – Source? Link? Provide them or you are just a kid on the playground saying “Is too!”.

      • By simple high school level algebra, the above graphs demonstrate either that anthropogenic warming is approximately zero or it is undifferentiable i.e. the anthropogenic component cannot be backed out, it could be anything. These graphs prove that the natural background temperature change is not constant. I challenge Phil or any warmist to use the above graphs to demonstrate that anthropogenic warming is any specific amount. The above graphs really imply that the only thing that warmists can defer to are the models. The fact that the models cannot match history means the models are useless. I am sure that everyone in the commercial world that runs models has to show to their boss that the models match history before the boss accepts the forecasts from the models.

        Alarmist climate scientists have to do a lot, lot better than this.

      • Well I’m not Phil, but I see some questions I know the answer to.
        As for the source, this is figure 2 from the recent paper by Karl.
        The anomaly is usually calculated with respect to some average temperature. In this case the 0 looks like the average temperature over 1950-present or something like that. The exact choice of 0 is not very important since these analyses are all about change rather than absolute values.
        The Karl corrections do not significantly warm the past. The Karl corrections are in figure A. Warming of the past has already been done in previous corrections, which is shown in figure B. Any way, the claim that the past is cooled to artificially introduce warming is nonsense. The raw data show stronger warming than the adjusted data.

      • Great Scott! Their correction today is larger than their error bars yesterday?!?! They must really be dialing it in.

      • The pre-1940 “without corrections” line is mostly the bucket adjustments to sea surface temperatures.

        Prior to 1940, all sea surface temperature measurements came from throwing a wooden or canvas bucket over the side, hauling it up onto deck and then placing a thermometer in the water. But this process introduces a cooling bias. The ocean is typically warmer than the air temperature and by the time the measurement was taken, the water had cooled off by 0.7C or so.

        This process was carefully measured in the early 1980s and, indeed, this method produces a real cooling bias. So, the old ocean sea surface temperatures were fixed with successive papers and by the mid-1980s, the sea surface temperature trend was fixed.

        By 1940, new methods including buoy measurements and ship hull and engine intake temperature measurements took over and the record then became reliable enough that no adjustments were required.

        In the last 4 or 5 months, the pro-warming community has tried to take advantage of this pre-1940 required adjustment and tried to pretend that the adjustments to 1910 sea surface temperatures, somehow justify adjusting the recent sea surface temperatures up.

        It just bothers me and I hope people benefit from understanding what this “without adjustment” line is all about.

      • This corrections help when cherry picking periods for trends.

        This might be a better way to point out the pause.

        According to GISS LOTI, there has been a 1°C/century trend for the last 100 years so that was subtracted from the data. 12 of the years between 1930 and 1945 were at least 0.1°C warmer than the trend. Only 3 were from 2000 to 2014. It might have warmed but [where] is the evidence that it was anthropological.

      • Here is what I see in those charts, Phil.

        1. The new corrections provide a steeper trend from 1960 to 2015. The decade around 1970 was adjusted down, and the decade 2005 – 2015 was adjusted up. How convenient.

        2. Even more significant, is the amount of upward adjustment over 2005 – 2015. They changed it a LOT. Goodbye hiatus.

        3. Here is a real kicker. The abnormally thick line representing the new corrections makes the changes appear less dramatic than they really are. How convenient. Coincidence? I think not.

        4. Regarding old or new corrections compared to uncorrected data, the period 1880 – 1940 was adjusted WAY up, providing a flatter trend. It’s a hockey stick correction. With the corrections they can claim the 1910 – 1945 warming trend, which couldn’t have been CO2 caused, wasn’t much warming at all, thus strengthening their argument that the present warming is greater than the past. How convenient. Must be CO2. NOT!

        And so Phil, it’s the large number of “corrections” that just happen to all reinforce the warmist point of view that is very suspicious. It’s clear there is at least significant bias, if not outright dishonesty, going on here. This is the type of BULL$HIT that I have a problem with. When I consider that my hard earned tax dollars are supporting this load of excrement, I just go ballistic.

      • Phil, what data set, what corrections made when?

        Those charts of yours do not begin to show the total corrections. The by far dominant adjustments are to cool the past, remove the 40s blip, and increase the current, to record divergence from the satellites.

      • I notice that Phil. did not post Table S1 from the supplemental materials to Karl (2015). Table S1 shows that the result of the new corrections is to significantly increase the warming rate (as shown by calculated anomalies) but only in recent years.

      • What are these graphs? They show that the past is cooled and the present warmed. No surprise there.

      • Phil, look at your own chart, at the last 10-20 years, the focus of this post. Clearly changed.

    • There’s nothing new about adjustments to these kind of data sets. They happen quite often and also to the satellite data. The recent adjustments were not justified by the adjustments prior to 1940, but rather by the discrepancy between buoy and ship data.

      • Aran

        There’s nothing new about adjustments to these kind of data sets. They happen quite often and also to the satellite data. The recent adjustments were not justified by the adjustments prior to 1940, but rather by the discrepancy between buoy and ship data.

        So tell me again WHY the buoy data from real thermometers calibrated to accurate to within 0.05 degrees is being adjusted by more than 1/2 degrees worldwide to bucket data from merchant ships sailing in only limited areas measured who knows how by who knows who?

      • Wasn’t the adjustments of 0.12 ± 1.7°C meant to alignment the ship data with the more reliable buoy data in the original research?

      • It was an adjustment of 0.12 degrees not 1/2 a degree.The adjustment was based on buoy and ship measurements made at the same locations. Anyway, since the whole analysis is about changes, the resulting trends would have been the same if the ships measurements would have been adjusted to match the buoys, rather than the other way around

      • Anyway, since the whole analysis is about changes, the resulting trends would have been the same if the ships measurements would have been adjusted to match the buoys, rather than the other way around

        If it was really about trends, they could have left both data sets alone and taken a metric of change over time in each. One cannot simultaneously state that fictitious temperatures can be mathemagically infilled, but that the fictitious differences between temperatures cannot.

      • The trend that is calculated is the global temperature trend. This is an aggregation of multiple data sets. If there is a discrepancy between two of these data sets, then the trend of the aggregation is influenced by this. Especially if, as in this case, the data volume that is taken for the two data sets changes over time. So leaving both alone is not a valid option. The point that an adjustment had to be made is very justified imho. Whether this particular adjustment is the right one is difficult for me to judge, I’ll leave that to the experts, but reducing the discrepancy is definitely valid.

      • The graduation from “bucket” to “ship” data was really scant improvement. The “ship” data needs to be recalibrated for the height of the deck, the daytime readings need to be thrown out to eliminate the iron solar collector effect, and the “Suez” effect when ships piled their decks high with lading to avoid some retarded tariff. This is just the air temperatures. The sea “surface” temperatures need to be adjusted for when readings were taken behind the ship and contaminated by engine heat and for the depth they were taken which ranges from zero to 8 meters, weighted to 5 meters.

        Sailors being who they are, none of these parameters was rigorously noted.

        So you take this rude, misshapen pile of data and presume to use it to calibrate scientific instruments on buoys carefully designed to collect this data…

        Science is when you use data to correct the hypothesis. Superstition (or fraud) is when you adjust the data to fit the hypothesis.

        Voices, they hear voices…

      • “Anyway, since the whole analysis is about changes, the resulting trends would have been the same if the ships measurements would have been adjusted to match the buoys, rather than the other way around”

        No, it wouldn’t since the proprtion of ship measurements has been steadily decreasing and the proportion of buoy measurements increasing, adjusting the buoys up to the ships will introduce a spurious warming trend.

        Which was probably exactly what was intended.

      • Karl (2015) made (at least) 11 adjustments to NOAA’s previous version. For example, they also weighted buoy data more heavily in the new version and extended pre-1940 ships adjustments into the modern era. The extension of the ship adjustments made the single-largest contribution to the net 0.064 C/decade increase in the warming trend for the period 2000-2014 (aka, killing the pause).

        Another choice they made that might have impacted the results (though in which direction is unclear to me) was to ignore the fact that measured buoy-boat discrepancies depend on location (which ocean, which current, etc.). The application of a 0.12 C global adjustment for all buoy data appears to conflict with the expert opinion of previous investigators.

      • Yes we get it, adjustments happen all the time which indicates the published measurements are wrong immediately upon publishing. Your interpretation of wrong could be as I use to say in private industry when confronted with less than enviable work, “Well at least it was close enough for government work”.

      • ” the resulting trends would have been the same if the ships measurements would have been adjusted to match the buoys”

        That comment probably wins the award for the most backwards statement of the day.

      • So you take this rude, misshapen pile of data and presume to use it to calibrate scientific instruments on buoys carefully designed to collect this data…

        New study shows no hiatus: Climate scientists have shown that the fleet of ARGO buoys and their thermometers have been miscalibrated. The lead author of the paper said: “For years we have ignored the birefringent effects of excessive alcohol consumption on vision. When accounting for these effects and a study showing the incidence of drunken sailors, we have determined that a lush will improperly bias graduated thermometer data higher by 1/2 a degree Celsius. This effect does not affect the reading of a digital display of temperature, however. So we have given more weight to the ARGO buoys as it is obviously harder to erroneously record the temperature reported by the instrument. And we have increased the reported temperature of the buoys by 1/2 a degree Celsius as well.”

        Climate deniers have claimed that this is fraudulent data tampering, but the lead scientist replied “These adjustments are perfectly appropriate as they would know if they knew anything about Science and instrument calibration. Previously we had been calibrating the buoys against glass thermometers and a sober Scientist. This study shows that this induces excess error in the calibration. For future temperature products all instruments will be calibrated by alcoholics.”

      • @tty Adjusting the buoys up to the ships does produce a warming trend. Adjusting the ships down to the buoys would have produced exactly the same trend. The numbers of ships and buoys don’t matter, because we’re basically taking an average. Furthermore I would argue that, since there was a discrepancy between buoys and ships, they removed a spurious effect from the trend, rather than introducing one.

        @alx May I point you to Willis Eschenbachs excellent post on how to disagree. Your “contribution” would rank somewhere in the lowest echelons of that pyramid. I challenge you to move up. If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong with arguments or (counter)examples.

    • Oh, you mean two of the climatologists that I’d actually trust to read a thermometer?

      • You would? Even though they managed to subtract an adjustment to their data instead of adding it, and took several years to correct their mistake?

      • Phil says: “you accept the data you like, and reject the data you don’t….” (ad nauseum). But ignores that their final dataset almost mirrors the weather balloon radiosonde data.

      • Wrong quote: should have read ” Even though they managed to subtract an adjustment ….. (ad nauseum).

      • Phil.

        “Even though they managed to subtract an adjustment to their data instead of adding it, and took several years to correct their mistake?”

        -And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
        – “Let him who is without sin… be the first to throw a stone”

      • Phil: We’re still waiting for the source of those charts you posted earlier. Did you make them up yourself, or just use NOAA’s made up data?

    • I wonder how government scientists, paid by the taxpayer to collect and protect the integrity of this public property, the data, get by with deliberately corrupting public data. If there were equal justice under law for all Americans, then these scientists feeding from the public trough would be arrested and prosecution for malfeasance and destruction of public property. Never happen, the new unequal justice under unequally applied laws will protect those in political favor from their crimes, and punish those out of political favor for doing nothing illegal. The Constitution is being trampled by a tin pot dictator and his running dogs in the Democrat Party and the MSM.

      • The key to an answer is the bit about “…paid by the taxpayer…”. How much grant/study money will the taxpayer be willing to give on a continual basis if there was no problem? “Everything is OK” don’t get the money,….NOW a crisis/doom/end-of-world prediction, that demands more study/money. Scientists are human they have mortgages to pay, kids to put through college, ect. The security of long term employment is a very biasing influence.

      • all it will require is one or two “brave” whistleblowers to come forward and the whole house of cards will fall apart. as time goes on and the sceinces is corrupted even more, the threshold that a scientist holds dear (probably funding or salary) will be overstepped. When this happens they will be falling over themselves to come clean in the hope of buying immunity from the wrath of a duped public.

      • They get by because the guy at the top likes what they are doing. To fix this first thing that’s gotta happen is get someone with more brains in there, someone smart enough to see this crap for what it is and then proceed to clean house! The number of useful idiots in this world just blows my mind.

      • Politics is not science and science is not politics. In war and politics there are no rules, except for your side to win. To that end the rules are whatever you can get away with and still win.

        A “Government scientist” does not serve science but uses science to serve the needs of their employer. An employee serves at the whim of their employer, or soon finds themselves no longer working. For a government scientist his employer is the government, and the government is a political body. Hence a government scientist uses science to practice politics making them a vague shadow of a scientist.

  2. Shame on anyone claiming to be a real scientist who DOESN’T question the methodology of this paper.

    • I don’t question it. I wouldn’t expect any real scientist to question it.

      It should be plainly obvious that the only purpose of the paper was to gin up fear among the ignorami.

  3. Skeptics we may well be. But contrary to Lewandowski’s opinion, we are NOT also conspiracy theorists.

    NOW with the government, in front of our eyes, changing the historical temperature plot, I wonder if a statement of conspiracy REALITY is appropriate.

    Come on guys… right in front of our eyes!?

    • At least since Climategate, the evidence of a conspiracy in fact has been undeniable, as it were. But it was apparent long before that time, to anyone who cared to delve into the sc@m.

      Evidence as to motive is harder to come by, but may be surmised.

      • In counter-espionage, an acronym for motive is MICE, ie Money, Ideology, Coercion or Compromise and Ego or Extortion. The C in the case of CACCA could be Career, but Coercion in the form of group pressure could also play a part. If you want to get published so as not to perish, you play along to get along.

        No shortage of ego among the CACCA extruders.

      • Motive is tough one since often people are convinced of their position to such a degree they truly see nothing in their position that could be possibly incorrect.

        Michael Behe’s testimony during the Dover intelligent design case was as passionate as it was idiotic and no matter how thoroughly discredited his position was shown under cross-examination he stuck to his guns. His guns though were only his ludicrous opinions, not attempts to dupe the court.

        I don’t think that is the case with Karl, I don’t think he as stupid as Behe, and his track record (such as the timing of this paper) indicates being politically motivated. However it would indeed be difficult to prove intentional malfeasance.

    • “Conspiracy” is a loaded word. This reminds me of the movie plot where the government was creating dozens of ludicrous conspiracy theories in order to make anyone who’d discovered a genuine conspiracy look like a nut.

      • This reminds me of the movie plot where the government was creating dozens of ludicrous conspiracy theories in order to make anyone who’d discovered a genuine conspiracy look like a nut.

        ^^^+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ^^^

    • It did not take a conspiracy among doctors to all agree for many years regarding the cause of ulcers, and for them all to be wrong.

      Same with all manner of false paradigms in science of the years.

      Although, even with the above being true, the case of the GAGW meme is an outlier. There has definitely been collusion, outright fraud, willful blindness to the over the top fear-mongering and corrupt data manipulations…
      Books will be written about this…thick books, and best sellers.
      When those who are complicit begin to see the backlash, it will be really something.
      It will be the mother of all ass-coverings.

    • At least our conspiracy “theory” has some un-“adjusted” evidence that supports it.

    • the pea and the shell game happens right before our eyes but the scam artists still manage to make a living (and usually pack up and run before the police arrive)

      • Well there you go. Maybe there is an inherent defect in humanity that allows people to allow themselves to be fooled. The showmanship dominates the viewers attention. I think there is a vital lesson there.

      • @ Paul
        I have heard at least one political commentator ruminate on more than one occasion on the seeming intractable tendency for humans to dismiss good news and embrace FUD (fear, uncertainty, & doubt). To quote from The King and I, “Is a puzzlement.”

  4. They’re desperate. If they gain control of the satellite data, they will “adjust” it to show ever increasing warming, too.

    The only upside I see is that they will start to key off increasingly sensitive data, and it may well bite them with a sudden downturn. When the discrepancies become too large to paper over with small adjustments, it will all come crashing down.

  5. Basically this is part of the Administration’s effort to discredit the skeptic points. I’m sure everybody remembers a couple of years ago, after one of the President’s more ridiculous alarmist speeches, Congress had a hearing on the subject of Obama’s climate-claims where the President’s own hand-picked scientific staff was made to look flatly stupid. The hearing received almost no media play – not just because of the way the hearing went, but because the whole purpose was to get the skeptic cards on the table so they could set about discrediting them – not through science, mind you, but in the court of public opinion. See they don’t have to actually PROVE any of the skeptic points are wrong – they just need a headline that says so – one that the press can (and will!) run with. Enough to convince the one and two-word speaking Twitter masses, if not anybody actually paying attention Propaganda 101. If reality doesn’t match your agenda, change the facts.

    • Has anyone else noticed that “Global Warming” came along right around the time the old Iron Curtain fell and the USA suddenly had a notable LACK of credible enemies? Suddenly there was nothing big and scary to “rally the citizenry” around through fear, and the country’s diverse interests began to fragment–along demographic, racial, and regional lines to name but a few.

      I began to look into “climate change” when I realized that no one was “doing” anything about it, in spite of the constant drumbeat of Big Fear from media outfits like NPR. If this is the “Greatest Threat to Modern Civilization” in our time, why, I asked, were the nations not mobilizing with a WWII-sized effort to mitigate carbon emissions? “Cap and trade” is ridiculous as a solution, reducing nothing but moving money around. The big suggestion on the .gov website? Compact fluorescent light bulbs! That’s about the time my BS meter went off and I bought and digested a number of skeptical books, and have been doing so ever since.

      This entire “scare” is nothing more than an attempt to fabricate a straw-man “enemy” to turn America’s fear-based paranoia OUTWARD–taking the place of Communism while bringing it to your back door. Propaganda 101, indeed!

    • My recollection of the mention of “global waming” from emissions of CO2 from human activities started in about 1972.

    • Karl et al shoots a hole in every data set.

      It conclusively proves that BEST, NASA, the MET office and the IPCC are incompetent and can not measure the temperature.
      Karl et al are right and everybody else is incompetent or in a suspicious collusion to pretend the temperature hasn’t been rising.

      And Tom Karl has to defend that.

  6. And when the correction to the correction happens, and the hiatus returns, the media silence will be deafening.

    • Genuine science has found no such thing. Other than local effects such as urban heat islands, there is no evidence that Man is the cause of whatever global warming has occurred since 1750. To the extent that there is any global human effect, it’s just as likely cooling as warming, thanks to our sulfur compounds, aerosols and particles.

      • Thanks for making my point. Since all the worlds institutions of science conclude the evidence for AGW is ‘compelling’, or ‘overwhelming’ it would seem to leave you on the side of something other than Science.

      • 1) They don’t all, and those which did, did so over a decade ago. Since there has been no global warming since then, while CO2 has continued upward, their baseless statements have been further falsified.

        2) The institutions as a body didn’t make those statements. Their directors or hand-picked small committees did. Had it ever been put up to a vote, the results would be different.

        3) What the directors of institutions say is completely meaningless in science. The most august geological societies in the 1950s would have averred that the continents don’t move. Not long ago, the most august medical associations would have scorned the idea that bacteria cause ulcers. August opinion–especially of organization directors who often aren’t scientists–matters not at all. Science is not done by consensus.

        As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of “experts””. Thus your pathetic appeals to false authority are anti-scientific.

      • sturgishooper…
        “there is no evidence that Man is the cause of whatever global warming has occurred since 1750. To the extent that there is any global human effect, it’s just as likely cooling as warming, thanks to our sulfur compounds, aerosols and particles.”
        Seriously? I don’t know what you have been reading. Here is a list of 200 scientific organisations that tell us we are causing warming.

        Hell, even Anthony Watts agrees there has been warming and man is responsible for some of it. The only debate is how much warming lies ahead and how much damage will it cause?

      • Simon (replying to sturgishooper)

        Hell, even Anthony Watts agrees there has been warming and man is responsible for some of it. The only debate is how much warming lies ahead and how much damage will it cause?

        The only debate is how much more CO2 lies ahead and how much damage many benefots will that CO2 cause?

        The only debate is how little warming lies ahead and how much damage many benefits will that warming cause?

        The only debate is how little warming lies ahead and how much damage will the religion of trying to destroy economies while “fighting CAGW” cause to the world?

        (By the way) How many Government-paid climastrologists will 92 billion dollars in three years buy?

        If a one-time payment of $25,000.00 from a conservative think tank “contaminates” forever a single researcher, how many “organizations” who live from their federal and university year budgets can be bought over an 18 year period of no global warming, but billions spent on global warming hype?

      • Simon,

        Scientific organizations have no evidence that humans are primarily responsible for climate change. The NSF few panelists just mouthed the IPCC’s lies. Associations assert that unsupported belief because part of their job is to keep funding flowing. The non-scientist leadership of organizations does not speak for the membership.

        As I commented to Warren, the associations’ endorsement of the IPCC occurred in 2004. Since then there has been no global warming despite ever increasing CO2. Fact are what matter, not the opinions of people paid to hold those opinions.

        An appeal such as yours to alleged (but false) authority is not scientific. It’s anti-scientific.

        I don’t know what Anth*ny’s conclusion is about the extent of man-made global warming (or cooling), but no doubt he can state his reasons for it.

        If you imagine that the net effect of human activity has bee to warm the globe by a measurable amount over some well-defined and continuing time period, please by all means present the evidence which you suppose supports that conclusion. IPCC hasn’t, so there’s likely a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

    • @warrenlb

      Considering that the statement “Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause” has been used again and again to mean catastrophic doom (Obama, Gore, etc, etc), only the insane like to hear it.

    • I see that warren is still trying to convince himself that the definition of science is “agrees with warren”.

    • And of course some of us are old enough to remember the ‘finding of Science’ that ‘Earth was Cooling and Man was the Cause’.

      • Steve C sez:

        And of course some of us are old enough to remember the ‘finding of Science’ that ‘Earth was Cooling and Man was the Cause’.

        And the remedy was the same; end fossil fuel use and establish a one-world government, in no particular order.

    • Assume much? It’s not a matter of liking or disliking a finding; it’s a matter of whether the “finding” is reasonably established by the evidence.

      As it stands one could reasonably make the case that the world has warmed and man has contributed to that warming to some degree from negligibly to dominantly. Anything beyond that is jumping to conclusions well beyond what the evidence actually supports.

      Just pick any institution, organization, association, or individual that advocates for GHG emission reductions and really go through their “scientific” basis for their advocacy position. You’ll find 100% of the time that Zohnerism is employed in an attempt to make a convincing case. 100% of the time a broader or deeper context of the “facts” presented paints either an entirely different picture or at the very least a more ambiguous conclusion.

      • IMO the CACCA hypothesis was born falsified. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected, indeed is by far more convincing and better supported than the supposition that man-made GHGs are the predominant cause of warming allegedly observed over the past century, fifty years, or whatever is the latest favorite period.

        The fact that the slope of the warmings, not that it can be measured with any accuracy or precision, was the same during the warmings of the late 19th century, early 20th century and late 20th century, with flat to cooling phases in between them, such as in which earth presently again finds itself now, falsifies the CACCA hypothesis. Even more so since CO2 rose dramatically during the cooling phase from the late 1940s to late 1970s, during which latter decade the scare du jour was global cooling.

      • simple Simon says;
        ” That’s the one Hawkeye Pearce signed.”

        It’s obvious to you that a skeptic added that name to pad the numbers?
        Not obvious that it was added to ridicule the list?

    • warrenlb says:

      …no one on this thread likes to hear the finding of Science that ‘Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause’.

      Most of us here are scientifc skeptics, not religious true believers like warren. Therefore, what most of us like are verifiable facts, and testable evidence. But warrenlb doesn’t have those. He’s got nothin’… nothing except for his belief, and his endless Appeal to Authority logical fallacies. Like this:

      Since all the worlds institutions of science…&blah, blah, etc.

      Only the most naive and credulous would believe that every organization marches in lock-step, with exactly the same message. The rest of us are not fool enough to believe in that conformity of thought. Out of dozens of orgs, not a single one even questions the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ (MMGW) scare?? They ALL believe exactly the same thing, with no deviation?

      That’s like the fact that all eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence have affirmed the necessity of murdering blasphemers and apostates. Same-same. The comparison is so obvious that only a dunce couldn’t see it: the 6-member Boards that issue those measurement-free opinions have been corrupted. With literally $Billions in play every year, warrenlb actually believes that none of that loot finds its way into compliant pockets?

      Not one of those professional organizations allows its members the opportunity to debate and vote on a straightforward question like: “Human CO2 emissions are the major cause of global warming – Yes or No.”? Not one of those organizations will allow members access to membership contact lists.

      Everything is tightly controlled alarmist propaganda, and it is aimed directly at credulous people like warrenlb, who are then expected to parrot that nonsense to others.

      True Believers like warrenlb are blind to the fact that in only a few months, more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers (all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s) co-signed a statement that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere. That is a far greater number than all the alarmist scientists that warrenlb can dig up. But he actually believes the nonsense that every professional organization just happened to toe the line with their alarmist message? He’s drunk the Kool Aid.

      warrenlb baselessly asserts that:

      ‘Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause’.

      I have repeatedly challenged warrenlb to produce even one empirical, testable measurement quantifying MMGW: what is the fraction of global warming, out of the total, that is caused by human CO2 emissions?

      warrenlb cannot answer that question. Is it 50%? warrenlb has no idea. Is it 2%? warren lb doesn’t have the foggiest notion. Is it 0.00214%? warrenlb has no clue. Because he has no measurements.

      Without data, science is nothing but conjecture. Measurements are data.

      But neither warrenlb nor anyone else has any measurements quantifying MMGW. They have NO IDEA what the fraction of MMGW global warming is. They are winging it.

      The whole “dangerous MMGW” scare is nothing more than a giant head fake, promoted by warrenlb and other eco-religious lemmings. He believes that he understands science, but he really doesn’t understand the first thing about it. For folks like warrenlb, science is just a thin veneer covering his greenie religion.

      Of course, I could be wrong. All it would take to prove me wrong are some verifiable, testable measurements quantifying MMGW. Got any, warrenlb?

      • The FACT that those 31,000 + skeptical scientists signed that petition needs to be shouted from the rooftops–namely, the front page of the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Boston Globe. Not to mention MSNBC, CNN, and FOX. THAT’s what we need to be doing in order to send this nonsense deservedly to the dustbin of history, right up there with Lysenkoism. Personally, I believe it’s the only thing keeping the UN alive right now, and of course they’re loathe to give up the money.

      • It’s the one signed by Freeman Dyson and William Happer, for instance.

        The prank MASH characters were removed after discovered. Yet our blog host’s dog is still a dues-paid up member of the UCS.

      • Db… anyway it is an old petition and science has moved on a whole lot more. MASH is not on TV and no one listens to the Spice girls anymore.

      • Simon,

        The science tilts ever farther in favor of climate realism with each passing year.

        The conclusions of the thousands real scientists, many among the most eminent in the world, who signed the petition have likewise been confirmed and shown valid in this century.

      • sturgishooper
        “The science tilts ever farther in favor of climate realism with each passing year.” Couldn’t agree more, which is why it is accepted by pretty much every climate scientist on the planet that we are warming and some part of that is caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. I challenge you to name a scientist currently publishing who would disagree with that.

      • There are well over 10 million US science graduates who qualify to sign the OISM petition.

        The 30,000 signatories therefore represent about 0.3% of the people qualified.

        Might be more credible if they could get at least 2% or maybe 3%

      • Simon,

        Until Karl cooked his books, most if not every “climate scientist” on the planet accepted the fact that earth has not been warming for 18 to 23 years, depending upon data set. That’s why they were forced to try to come up with dozens of fanciful explanations for the “pause” or “hiatus”, which is more properly called a plateau, since GASTA could go either way. In the satellite record, it’s already moving down.

        “Climate scientist” BTW is a neologism created so that computer modelers could be included among actual scientists. Climatologists they are not.

        Since there is no warming in the satellite and balloon data sets and indeed even in the heavily stepped upon phoney “surface” “records”, while CO2 continues to rise, it should be obvious that there is no evidence of such an effect as you imagine. For the first more than 30 post-war years, the planet cooled while CO2 rose. There was an accidental interval of rising GASTA and rising CO2 for about 20 years, c. 1977-96, but that coincidence is long past.

        There are numerous distinguished scientists in relevant fields who find little or no human fingerprint in the record, such as it is. Had you studied the subject, you wouldn’t need to ask for just one. I’ve already cited a number of those who remain unconvinced of the CACCA fantasy.

        There is in fact zero actual physical evidence of any net man-made warning. It is entirely hypothetical, but even were it to exist, the models predicting catastrophic consequences have been repeatedly shown worse than worthless.

        I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming, or even just of measurable man-made global warming at all. Thanks again.

      • Joel,

        Science is not decided by voting, but most holders of BS, MS and PhD degrees in science work in the private sector, where real results are what count, not publishing garbage “research” and GIGO computer models.

        If every science grad in America were polled, based upon my acquaintance as a perhaps representative but obviously not scientific sample, CACCA would lose, hands down.

        The Oregon Petition sample may or may not be statistically significant, but in academia and government, many so-called “scientists” live in fear.

        CACCA is a crock. Its advocates are forced to d*ny reality and engage in scientific malpractice.

      • Hey, here’s an idea.
        Instead of polling all of the graduates, why not examine all the published research and determine where climate science stands?…….oh wait……..nevermind.

        Your opinion regarding “CACCA would lose” is noted.

      • sturgishooper
        I take that long winded reply as a “no” I can’t name a single climate scientist.

      • Joel,

        Most published research is garbage, but in fact there is not a single paper offering conclusive physical evidence of actual AGW detected in the climate system, let alone of CAGW. And if there’s no catastrophic AGW, then why worry about it at all? So far more CO2 in the air has been beneficial. Even more would be better.

        Surveys of published “research” finding support for AGW are bogus.

        But back to voting on science. If you don’t like the Oregon Petition for some reason, then how about the letter of 60 distinguished scientists in relevant disciplines sent to the Canadian government in 2006? Their credentials, not that that should matter, are far more impressive than the drones of the IPCC, largely hailing from the Third World weather recording community (as per MIT atmospheric physicist Lindzen):

        Or the 49 NASA rocket scientists and astronauts from 2011, whose opinion for instance is shared by Burt Rutan:

        No global warming for going on two decades despite rising CO2 and previously global cooling during more than 30 years of rising CO2 mean that you lose because observed reality is against your cult. It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

      • Simon,

        As noted, I’ve already named many. By “long-winded” I assume you mean unanswerable.

        That no actual, measurable physical evidence exists for man-made global warming is not an opinion. It’s a fact. Yet again, please show me wrong if you can.

        Look at the letters from scientists to the Canadian government and retired NASA personnel.

        I could cite the “Father of Hurricanology”, Dr. William Gray, or the late, great “Father of Climatology” Dr. Reid Bryson, who said, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide”.

        But if you really want a list of some of the millions of scientists who know that CACCA is a crock (including ACCA in some cases), please find it below. Dr. Courtney might think that AGW exists. He comments here often, so I’d be happy to hear his opinion. Dr. Ball famously said (I paraphrase) “If the climate were a car, the sun would be the engine, water vapor would be the transmission and man-made CO2 would be one lug nut on one wheel” or words to that effect. I hope he’ll correct me if wrong.:

        Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

        Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

        Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

        Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

        Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

        Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

        Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

        Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

        Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

        Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

        Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

        Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

        Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

        Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

        Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

        Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

        Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

        Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

        Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

        Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

        Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

        Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

        Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

        Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

        Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

        Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

        Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

        Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

        Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

        Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

        Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

        Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

        Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

        Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

        Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

        Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

        Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

        Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

        Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

        Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

        Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

        Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

        Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

        Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

        Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

        Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

        Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

        Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

        Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

        Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

        Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

        Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

        Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

        Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

        Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

        Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

        Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

        Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

        Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

        Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

        Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

        But again, I remind you, to quote the late Dr. Michael Crichton, “If it’s consensus, it’s not science and if it’s science, it’s not consensus”.

      • sturgishooper

        Thanks for your list, and thank you for making my point. None of these people (unlike you)deny the greenhouse effect or that increasing atmospheric CO2 will have a warming effect. They just don’t think the outcome will be catastrophic. That really is the debate here. What is ahead and is it worth curbing the use of fossil fuels for?

      • Simon.

        When did I ever “d*ny” the GHE? In a lab, the effect of doubling CO2 yields about one degree C of warming. You have not been paying attention or failed to grasp what I said.

        What I did say, and what is a fact, is that there is no discernible net warming in the climate system from human activity. It could well be that an increased GHE exists in the atmosphere from more CO2, but it is not detectable. Negative feedback effects may promptly cancel it out, or other human activities which cool the air may override it. No one knows. But the fact is that there is exactly zero actual observational data showing a net global warming from human activities.

        IPCC unphysically assumes positive feedbacks not in evidence, while ignoring certain negative feedback effects. Its assertion of a human “fingerprint” in alleged climate “data” is totally without support.

        Plenty of scientists in relevant discipline would concur in my assessment of the effect on climate of man-made CO2, to include, as I noted, the greatest climatologist of his generation and virtual founder of the field Dr. Bryson, who first gained renown by predicting the typhoons into which ADM Halsey twice sailed his fleet.

        Again, please state the reasons why you imagine there is a human signal in global warming and how big it is. Citing bespoke “research” doesn’t count. As I told Joel, there is not a single paper producing actual physical evidence of net AGW, let alone CAGW. Please cite it if you know of one. And if it’s not catastrophic, what is the problem?

      • Sturgis

        So in an attempt to understand where you are coming from, I researched this guy Dr. Bryson. All I can say is you win, you have out weirded me.

      • simon

        In this thread you have repeatedly claimed you don’t know that science is a method and not opinions.

        To help you understand your multiple errors, I introduce you to the null hypothesis as it applies to the existence of discernible man-made global warming.

        The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

        The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

        In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

        Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

        However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

        In the case of global climate in the Holocene, no recent climate behaviours are observed to be unprecedented so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

        Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

        Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect (other than distorting temperature measurements). Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

        The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

        Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
        Idso from surface measurements
        and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
        and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

        Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

        To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.


      • Simon climbs down:

        “…science has moved on.”

        Facts and evidence don’t change, simon. There still isn’t a single verified measurement of AGW. Not one. (Disclaimer: I think AGW exists; it’s just very tiny.)

        The lack of any measurements makes the whole “dangerous man-made global warming” scare nothing more than a conjecture. And I challenge you to produce proof that any of the fake names mentioned were ever part of the OISM Petition.

        J. Jackson says:

        “…please note that there is no “c” in the science of AGW”

        Then we can stop wasting the $billions of tax dollars shoveled into “climate change” studies every year? Good idea. That money is being thrown down a rat hole for no good purpose.

        But as we all know, there certainly is a “C” in front of AGW. If not for that “C”, the debate would have been over before it started. You believe in that “C”.


        “There are well over 10 million US science graduates who qualify to sign the OISM petition. The 30,000 signatories therefore represent about 0.3% of the people qualified.”

        LOL! That old canard is the ultimate in stoooopid. If it had any validity at all, then every polling organization from Gallup to Rasmussen would promptly go out of business.

        The 31,000 OISM co-signers are representative, because there’s such a thing as sampling the population. And 31,000 scientists and engineers is a big sample. Climate alarmists have never been able to produce anywhere near those numbers. Just like CAGW, their “consensus” is only a head fake. It isn’t real.

        I have repeatedly challenged people like Jackson: let’s see you produce even 10% of the number of OISM co-signers who say that the OISM Petition is wrong; scientists who state that CO2 is harmful.

        Go ahead, I’ll wait…

        …what’s that? You can’t find even10% of alarmist scientists and engineers to match the OISM numbers??

        OK then, go and find even ONE percent of the OISM’s numbers, naming alarmist scientists who dispute the OISM statement (that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere).

        One percent is only about 300 named scientists. Go find those names, and post them here.

        Even if you could find 1%, skeptics have you outnumbered by 100 – 1.

        Face it, the climate alarmist clique is composed of just a handful of rent seeking, self-serving scientists who are cashing in on the climate scare. They are making plenty of money, and enjoying vacations to holiday venues at the public’s expense. They are folks who were dweebs and nerds in school — but now they’re suddenly rock stars to people who believe their nonsense! They will never willingly give up those things.

        But some of us wonder: what do people like Simon and Jackson get out of the fake climate scare? I can understand why Michael Mann plays the part of a climate charlatan: the rewards are immense. But why do unpaid lemmings follow Mann’s proven climate crapola? What do they get out of being proven wrong?

        It’s amazing that people who should know better buy into a scare with almost no supporting evidence, and without a single quantifying measurement. Are you people nuts? Or is “Green” your new religion? You seem to be no different than new Scientology recruits.

        Is there something I’m missing? Because it isn’t the science; I got that. So what drives you to believe in the “carbon” scare? Can you explain it in a way that Leon Festinger would understand?

      • DB ….. every IPCC report is the result of the finest minds in the field and has far more credibility than the Mickey Mouse Oregon petition. Actually I didn’t check, did Mickey mouse sign it?

      • Simon sez:

        every IPCC report is the result of the finest minds in the field


        You should do stand-up comedy! You’d pack the house…

        …and still waiting for any proof of “Hawkeye Pierce” or any other fake names you fabricated.

      • DB…. You pose these ridiculous prove it problems. Of course I can’t prove Hawkeye Pierce signed the petition. I don’t have it in my hand and the original has long erased it. And can’t prove the exact amount of warming that is man made. Any figure I produce is easily discounted because there is no figure that could ever be accurate, or at least argued. It’s not a piece of string to be measured to the millimetre. It’s like saying… tell me exactly how many lung cancers are caused through smoking. You can’t and it would be ridiculous to try. But we know lung cancer is caused by smoking and that a good many people die because they smoked, just like we know some of the warming is caused by man made CO2 and that it is possible, even likely it will cause us some trouble down the road.

        So while you do your little prove it jig and may well feel happy with yourself while you do it…. you fool no one….. except yourself. On the other hand it f it makes you feel better, why stop? Just don’t bore me with your tiresome unanswerable questions.

      • simon sez:

        You pose these ridiculous prove it problems.

        Every statement that skeptics make is promptly jumped on by the alarmist clique, saying, “Prove it.” Even if it’s completely self-evident, proof is demanded. That’s good in a way, because we are careful not to make baseless assertions.

        But you seem to expect a free pass for your own baseless assertions. When you claim that “Hawkeye Pearce” or “Mickey Mouse” or anyone else signed the OISM Petition, you had best be able to prove it. Because it’s your credibility at stake – or lack of it. When you say, I don’t have it in my hand, you’re implying that you are telling the truth, instead of passing on gossip. But are you being truthful? I doubt it. You made a baseless assertion, which could not withstand the mildest scrutiny. As far as anyone can see, your assertion is false. None of those names are on the OISM site, and every one of the 31,000+ co-signers is there. But instead of looking, you deliberately passed on false information.

        You also admit that you can’t prove the exact amount of warming that is man made.

        Well, that is pretty central to the debate, isn’t it? Your assertion is that man-made global warming (MMGW) is happening. But you have no measurements of MMGW, and you admittedly have no proof whatever that it exists. You simply believe.

        What kind of a position is that? Is it like, “Take my word for it”? If so, that assertion falls into the same category as claiming — without any evidence at all — that fictitious characters are on the OISM list. (They aren’t; I checked. You could have checked, too, but you didn’t.)

        Next, you baselessly assert:

        …we know some of the warming is caused by man made CO2 and that it is possible, even likely it will cause us some trouble down the road.

        And you “know” this, how, exactly? You’ve admitted that you have no measurements quantifying MMGW. You even admitted that there aren’t any. So, that’s just another baseless assertion. If it weren’t for your baseless assertions, you wouldn’t have much of anything to say. All you are doing is passing on your eco-beliefs. That’s not science; that’s just your religion.

        You wind up with this lame response:

        Just don’t bore me with your tiresome unanswerable questions.

        So you can’t answer simple questions. Which means you’ve been talking through your hat the whole time. No wonder you deflected onto fake cartoon names, instead of posting facts and evidence; you’ve got nothin’.

        If I’m boring you, by all means, feel free to skip my responses. I’ll continue posting them anyway, because readers should be aware that your side has got nothing. Nothing but baseless assertions. That’s all you’ve ever had.

    • Science did not find man is the cause of warming unless you mean where the recent temperatures are adjusted upward and past temperatures downward. That statement is nothing more than a declaration. There are no measurements of CO2 increasing temperatures in the last half century.

    • No. Because it isn’t and CO2 is an essential gas for life on earth. And there are few if any “Science findings” supporting this hoax called human caused anthropogenic CO2 global warming.

    • It is also strange that the scientific consensus on GMO foods are safe is not believed by a large number of people e.g Greenpeace. So what makes one true and the other false. same goes for fracking

    • I think we have a nice example of the Twitter-verse in Warren here. No idea what he’s talking about but speaks with the authority of all the ‘institutions of science’ because that’s what the headlines said. Impressive words too. ‘Compelling’. ‘Overwhelming’.

      You use over-stated jargon when your case is weak.

      But the Tweet’s already out. Release the Lemmings.

    • EARTH IS WARMING AND MAN IS THE CAUSE sounds like another slogan for the proles alone the lines of WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
      ‘Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause’ — even the IPCC doesn’t go that far.

    • Newsflash! Taxpayer-funded people whose jobs depend on there being a looming crisis repeatedly claim there’s a looming crisis!

    • “It seems almost no one on this thread likes to hear the finding of Science that ‘Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause’.”

      I am fairly certain no one on this thread likes to hear about science finding that aliens abducted big foot to breed an invasion force to take over the earth.

      Science did find evolution, it’s good at that type of thing, unfortunately science does not find ideologies like ‘Earth is Warming and Man is the Cause’.”

      I have never seen you provide evidence or meaningful argument, you must be an idiot or a troll. Hard to tell.

  7. I love the slick way they built that pair of graphs shown in Phil’s comment.

    First, they show the graph of “new” versus “old” corrections, with a thin little red line and a nice thick black line – that nicely camouflages the amount of upward adjustment they made.

    Then, they show the lower part – “without corrections.” What they mean is “without the previous corrections used over the last few decades, correcting for bucket and engine intake errors.” It makes it look like they radically adjusted the pre-1940 numbers to appear much warmer – when they didn’t.

    You can see this a lot better if you look at the “large” version:

    • “””””…..“without the previous corrections used over the last few decades, correcting for bucket and engine intake errors.”

      This would seem to relate to sea water temperatures sampled from unknown depths, under unknown conditions.

      In any case Christy et al’s discovery that sea water and oceanic air temperatures are not the same, and are not correlated would seem to label all of that data; adjusted, or unadjusted as “junk.”

      So I wouldn’t put any credibility in any ocean surface Temperature data prior to 1980. (when the near surface buoys were first set out, which data Christy et al reported on in Jan 2001 (I think Geophysical Research Letters) )

      • I think we need millimetre (or possibly smaller) graduations shown on Vuk’s graph of bucket depth dipping. It’s all about the precision!

    • Does anyone have a link to a page explaining exactly what the graphs Phil presented are supposed to represent? I suspect I’m not interpreting them correctly.

    • Yes the difference in line thickness was kind of laughable and sad, it was intended to deceive.

      And yes piling adjustments on top of adjustments eventually makes the data too fuzzy and provides decreasing value at each adjustment. All adjustments should be comprehensively re-considered and then merged and the applied to the base otherwise you are using the same methodology a blindfolded kid uses to hit a pinata, ie no methodology, you just keep swinging. It is not clear if they even have a workable detailed history of why and how adjustments were made.

  8. The linked to report reports Peter Frumhoff’s (director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists) response to criticism:

    Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper.

    “I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.”

    Does he mean this kind of legitimate scientific peer review?

    “…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    ————–Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004

    • “I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone…..”

      This paper is only now undergoing peer review and failing. Being published does not mean it has been peer reviewed, only that it was deemed valid to be published by 2 or 3 persons, not the scientific community which is picking it apart for its failings.

      Perhaps Anthony’s live-in member of the Union of Concerned Scientists could explain the peer review process to Peter Frumhoff.

      • Benji says: “grrrrr.” Benji also knows what a paper like this is best used for. The “Fire Hydrant” treatment comes to mind.

      • I believe Anthony’s dog was actually accepted into the membership.

        Further, as a member of the UCS, his comment regarding Karl’s paper is that it should only be considered a “ruff” estimate.


    • So, the Union of Concerned Scientists takes a serious position affirming AGW, and then Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who should know the science and data backwards that support the UCS position, makes an argument from authority.

      Frumhoff meets the warrenlb standard, namely advancing the argument classically made by someone who knows nothing of science; neither how it works in principle, nor any of the data and theory going in to the question.

      Frumhoff ought to be forced to resign, on the basis of incontestable incompetence. He’s as much an embarrassment to UCS, as UCS is to honest scientists.

      • @Pat Frank
        So you, who have no publications in ISI listed peer-reviewed scientific journals, accuse others of ‘not knowing anything about science? Perhaps that’s why your previous papers were rejected by legitimate journals, and why the only papers you’ve had published were in conference posters, ‘Energy and The Environment(hardly a peer-reviewed journal), and similar pseudo science journals without rigorous review.

      • warrenlb

        In common with your usual practice of proclaiming ther opposite of reality you write

        ‘Energy and The Environment(hardly a peer-reviewed journal), and similar pseudo science journals without rigorous review.

        How dare you post such untrue and libelous nonsense!?

        I am a member of the Editorial Board of Energy & Environment (E&E). Hence, I can utterly refute your nonsense.

        Papers published in E&E are peer reviewed in full and traditional manner.

        E&E is indexed in the ISI and is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports .

        warrenlb, you would frequently cite E&E if you were consistent in your persistent use of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.


      • warrenlb

        Perhaps you would be willing to withdraw your completely untrue post and apologise for it while I await retrieval of my rebuttal of it?


      • @richardscourtney

        1) ‘Energy and the Environment’ is not on the ISI list of peer-reviewed journals. Just because a journal calls itself peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it meets standards of quality and objectivity. ISI apparently doesn’t think it belongs among the ranks of ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’.

        2) According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2012 impact factor of 0.319, ranking it 90th out of 93 journals in the category “Environmental Studies”.

        3) According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.

        4) Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, “Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?”

        5) A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that “scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists.” Editor Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal’s “impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it”,

        6) Your editor, Boehmer-Christiansen, also said, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?” . That’s objective journalism?

        I stand by my earlier post.

      • Let’s see, warrenlb, I’ve published in The Journal of the American Chemical Society, Inorganic Chemistry, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, among many others. These are some of the top journals in my field.

        Here is a Google Scholar search on my name. I’m among the authors of sixteen of the first 20 papers listed. My list of peer-reviewed publications exceeds 70. One of those 70 is a short paper on the distinction of science from philosophy.

        As we’ve discovered is usual with you, you’ve jumped with both feet into an area where you’re totally ignorant. One thinks you’d learn better.

        It’s not surprising you’d sympathize with Peter Frumhoff’s argument from authority, as that exhausts your entire armamentum of mindless opinion-mongery.

        Every single one of my papers in Energy and Environment was peer-reviewed. In one instance, the E&E reviewers found an error missed by 5 reviewers, two associate editors and the chief editor during three rounds of review at the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. So, which is superior?

        The chief editor at JAMC rejected my paper on his own trumped up excuse (3 of 4 reviewers recommended publication), to which he refused to allow a response. In 70+ peer-reviewed publications, such a violated standard of practice has happened only twice to me, and both times by climate journal editors. The manuscript was published as two papers in E&E, here and here (two ~1 MB pdfs). Let’s see you refute either of them.

        As to Energy and Environment itself, when the history of the outrage that is AGW is written, E&E will stand as one of the few journals with the integrity to publish skeptical papers. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is a hero, who has withstood the personal attacks and slanders that so typify your coterie of champions. E&E’s low impact factor merely indicates the determination of consensus climate scientists to ignore any challenge to their desired narrative. As such, it’s a badge of honor in the benighted land of climatology.

        Your outspoken ignorance is perfectly suited to, and reflective of, that field.

      • warrenlb got his E&E talking points from the Wikipedia article on E&E, which begins with the statement that, “Energy & Environment (E&E) is a peer-reviewed[1][2] academic journal….”

        Wiki’s reference [1] is to E&E’s ISI listing, directly contradicting warrenlb’s denial of that very fact.

        Great reading comprehension, warren. That may explain a lot about the quality of your opinions.

        Every authentic scientist and every science-minded person knows that the quality of a paper is in its content, and not in the citation standing of the journal where it’s published. warren, the content of your post clearly shows you’re not among that group.

  9. Follow the pea. Karl 2015 relied on Huang 2014 for the new SST reconstruction. Huang warmed SST buoy data by 0.12C ( his table 1, last line). Huang got 0.12C from Kennedy 2011. Kennedy 2011 is not about surface buoys. It is about engine room intake measurements. And the proposed adjustment was 0.12 plus minus 1.7C! That uncertainty was never mentioned in the Huang paper.

  10. Here is an interesting clip from Texas A&M University marine engineering technology notebook:
    start paste
    The temperature of the water drawn into the ship to cool the engines has been recorded routinely for decades. These recorded values of temperature are called injection temperatures. Errors are due to ship’s structure warming water before it is recorded. This happens when the temperature recorder is not placed close to the point on the hull where water is brought in. Accuracy is 0.5°-1°C.
    end paste

    The fact that the ship temperature averages 0.12C higher than the floating buoys is not surprising to me. Nor is the accuracy range. Process cooling water temperatures are not measured to the same degree of accuracy as the ARGO buoys. Nor do they cost as nearly as much. To take the ship temperatures as the gold standard is clearly wrong.

    • Some seaweed caught on the temperature probe might insulate enough to raise measured injection temp that much. As you say, not a ‘gold standard’ measurement process.

      • Maybe you’d have to kill me after telling me, but are you, as a former SSN sailor, by chance familiar with the submarine temperature reading record?

      • Gunga,

        My door is pretty well guarded but maybe not against a human killing machine trained and programmed from youth.

        IMO the USN and USAF have climatological data which have not been as deeply mined as they might, whether because they are classified or “climate scientists” might not like what they show.

    • I agree. For operational purposes, it would be the temperature of the water just as it entered the heat exchanger that would be of interest, perhaps after it has traveled some distance through a hot engine room.

    • JFD
      June 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm
      ” Process cooling water temperatures are not measured to the same degree of accuracy as the ARGO buoys.”

      I think the process cooling water is measured “accurately” just no very precisely. I suspect the ARGO buoys measure “precisely” but who knows how “accurate” they are.

    • Where I work we get two air temperature readings.
      One of them faces south and is mounted on a masonry wall over a concrete walkway.
      Lousy for the actual air temperature outside but just fine for input to the cooling system controls and machinery it is hooked in with. Sounds like you are describing a similar relationship.

    • JFD
      The paste is about right.
      The sea water is used as cooling water – and many ships, nowadays, at least – also measure outlet temperatures.
      Precisely – usually to 0.1C.
      Accurately – I don’t know.
      [I trust I have understood Willis’s distinction; the ship can tell when it moves into a new current, as there is a change – perhaps of 0.5C – in the inlet temperature; but the exact new – or old – water temperature is probably only – about 32C . . .]
      Whilst possible to calibrate [annually, usually] it is unclear what the calibration gives the ship owner, the manager, or the charterer, beyond some fairly imprecise measure of how much energy is wasted, basically heating the oceans [versus driving the ship through the water, which makes money if you have cargo on board!].
      Cutting edge marine technology may now be much more accurate – the ships I help manage are coming up to a decade old, so designed at the start of the century.


    • A classic ‘better than nothing ‘ approach to data collection which runs all the way through climate ‘science’

  11. The Mann Prize for data manipulation in altering history for current arguments sake goes to……And next up the award for best smear campaign of critics and fact finders.

  12. if you look at the Interglacial temperature charts, you notice that Interglacials start out hot, then the temperature goes up and down, gradually undulating downwards until the next ice age kicks in. This pattern has been going on for the past 2.5 million years. Doesn’t anyone ever look at the bigger picture? 20th C warming is just the last gasp of the Holocene Interglacial before we plunge into the next Ice Age. And moronic warmists actually believe that a 0.01% increase in CO2 is going to throw this pattern off course? I despair.

    • There will probably be more centennial-scale cooler and warmer cycles before the next NH continental ice sheet glaciation, but the temperature trend has been down for at least 3000 years, since the Minoan Warm Period, and probably 5000, since the end of the Holocene Optimum.

      The Holocene so far has been pretty tepid compared to the warmth of the previous interglacial, the Eemian, and some of its predecessors. As you note, its peak warmth is, as usual, long past. It’s unlikely to have a last hot hurrah, whether due to human activity or for any other reason.

  13. The LAT’s covered the initial NOAA story on June 4th, and quoted one of their go to scientists, William Patzert (he’s generally seemed to present as a confirmed warmest, but with a level head), and they allowed:

    “Researchers representing the scientific mainstream also rejected the idea that global surface temperatures never stopped rising.

    “It’s always good to go back and look at the data as carefully as possible and make sure it’s calibrated correctly,” said William Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. “But the hiatus is history and it was real.”

    The LAT’s piece also contacted Curry and presented her view as well. It was quite the day for the LAT’s, a very rare occurrence – this allowing for opposing views – indeed.


  14. I can only conclude that the “Dark Matter” that everyone is searching for is actually the cause of global warming as both cannot be proved to exist.

  15. Hmmm….the CAGW meme stuck to the wall for awhile. For 18+ years Ma’ Nature has been peeling it off.
    People have noticed.
    This paper appears to be an attempt to apply a liberal dose of “super glue”.

  16. A lady who has been working on this theoretical physics for 30 years or something said that her greatest fear was that they had it completely wrong.

    Did you ever ask yourself that “Why is reality so difficult to understand” ?

  17. The only conclusion I make is that the surface thermometer record is so unreliable that it has taken decades while these clowns just play with adjustments and still can’t even ‘model’ things accurately.

    1 The “science” clearly cannot be settled and
    2 An awful lot of the “scientists” in this field seem pretty unsettled too if not downright unhinged.

      • Gunga – a better man than I –
        our watermelon pals have made a slight error.
        “The science is settled”
        Now, with amazing foresight, prescience, and 20/20 hindsight, I can tweak that:
        “The politics is settled” –
        Does that feel ‘better’?


  18. Climate science is in the dark ages from not agreeing or for that matter really not knowing why/how the climate of the earth changes to not even being able to agree on present and past data. Between all the adjustments and all the different sources to collect climate data I would say this field is in the dark ages. It is the only scientific area where one can say no progress has been made.

    • Well, we went from torturing, then burning our women, to merely burning our food. Some might claim a little progress. :) GK

  19. London ‘Times’ swallowed it whole last Saturday – ‘hiatus is a myth scientists say’ was the thrust. Didn’t print my letter of course!

    • Even if you buy Karl’s oceanic cooked books, which I don’t, the plateau continues in the atmosphere, as observed by satellites and balloons. And if CO2 in the air be the ostensible cause of alleged global warming, then the atmosphere would have to warm up before it could warm the seas. And more.

  20. Is all the raw data available for this data set to the general public? Is the methodology available also? That would be the reason for the adjustment in detail and the algorithms for this adjustment?

  21. No “conspiracy” is required to get folks (scientists included) to produce most any outcome you like. Simply reward those who head in “your” direction and punish those who do not. Government is in possession of the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick. Label “your” direction as good for the environment and news media will join your parade. When it occurs to folks that “your” direction will result in more centralized government control (possibly even “one-world” power), everyone left of the political center will dedicate themselves to herding the masses in “your” direction and steer them away from such pesky concerns as “cost versus benefits” and even “reality versus fiction”.

  22. Amazing – when the real headline would have to read, “Readings from dodgy thermometers on ships used to generate new untrustworthy global temperature record”.
    But somehow that wouldn’t sound quite so catchy.

  23. The methodology was invented by people like Phil Jones.
    It involves physically modelling a variety of buckets and the effects of raising them to the height of various heights of deck in various types of weather, and then imagining several fag smoking sailors standing over the bucket with a thermometer. There are heaps of assumed stuff about the bucket and the ship.
    And then the intake thermometers were treated in a similar manner.
    At some point somebody tried using a bucket on a ship with an intake and compared both values and this got used as the gold-standard for switching between buckets and intakes.
    There are so many ways in which errors can pile up that it’s really quite unbelievable that this is the best that we can do.
    Maybe we should be using tree-rings for the modern era.
    What do they show, post 1960?

    • Here’s a bucket sample:

      The most important thing for bucket sampling is to tie the retrieval line to the ship, and not to you. When I was doing this in 1970-71, it was standard practice to notify the engine room when you were taking the bucket sample so they could take a corresponding reading. There should be lots of paired data, sea “surface” vs. engine cooling intake temperatures, without going off the deep end into deep theory.

      One other point: In addition to questions about the temperatures, the locations are important. Before GPS/GNSS, location accuracy might be within a nautical mile or so. Better accuracy was obtained close to shore with LORAN. For the old measurements (cooling and/or bucket), location was based on skill with the sextant and chronometer or listening to WWV time signals.

      • Excellent points. But in a “discipline” where 1200 km counts as good enough, today’s “climate scientists” shouldn’t be bothered by the location problem.

  24. Hate the auto-play video ads. I have stopped visiting sites with them. The Breitbart site is the worst. Please reconsider the use of these ads WUWT.
    [we don’t control them, does, and every website is likely to display them -mod]

  25. The field of climate science today can best be described as lethal poison … the “poison” being disguised as scientific data put out by government paid scientists which is really just propaganda issued under the authority of their public office to promote a political agenda. And “lethal” to the real genuine scientists who dare question, scrutinise, and challenge such unscientific “pseudo scientific propaganda”.

    These climate change charlatans are making once highly respected organisations look like modern day “FIFA” type bodies in which corruption is allowed to flourish.

    At least in New Zealand, in relation to the “Kiwigate” temperature data scandal, the originator of the technique of temperature data adjustment to create an enhanced global warming trend (which was not evident in the real data held by the NZ Met Service) was summarily dismissed from his position at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, which was providing the flawed data used in determining multi-decadal trends in global average temperatures used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  26. Even with the latest corrections, there is a pause( no additional rise in temperature between the dates ) from 1880-1935, and again 1945-1980 . Satellite data confirms the current pause. The current pause is likely to last 20-30 years more .

  27. The timing of Karl’s paper is outstanding. I’m so impressed. One day we wake up and its very important to spend trillions of dollars on CAGW. Its so obvious that I should pivot my business to net some of this cash. Maybe I could get to the head of this movement somehow, maybe o could be the spokesman and star in a bunch of dodgy documentaries claiming “we are already screwed”? My feeling is that I would be competing with others who claim.we’re beyond screwed, them I would have to ramp up my rhetoric to get air time. Hmmmmm, ” we are screwed so bad, hell is gonna feel like a deepfreeze compared to how utterly screwed we are”. “All babies will be born soulless demons”… Or something, ” kittens will bake to a crisp under the noon sky”

  28. Karl et al 2015 finally “jumps the shark” by showing just how easy it is to manipulate the data.

    I suggest they manipulate it a bit more and end AGW in our time.

  29. So the satellite data that still shows the pause with global coverage is not government data? Is that right?

  30. Owenvcthegenius
    I would not call the timing of this study outstanding . I would call the timing political and troublesome. Its timing seems to me somewhat deliberate and comes out just as the world leaders are meeting at the G7 meeting in Europe and during the Berlin climate negotiations and also prior to the upcoming Paris Conference . This study follows at the heels of the 2014 Annual report with similar questionable science and doubtful record temperature claims that was released just prior to the state of the union speech . They claimed that the 2014 warming was not due to El Nino effects but later backtracked and showed an El Nino during the latter part 0f 2014 . When a scientific organization places political agenda ahead of its scientific mandate it looses its credibility as the national climate record keeper and becomes just another branch of the ruling political party. As we saw with the flawed 2014 annual report , other US scientists and scientists in other parts of the world are again speaking out about the possible flawed science in this report that claims no recent slowdown in the rise of global temperatures . AGW scientific consensus clearly flew out the window. Rather than seeking consensus first on major changes in previously accepted records with other scientists of equal if not more experience in this field , they seem to rush out with press release to score political points for their political leaders only.

    • Here is the quote from NOAA annual report for 2014

      “This is the first time since 1990 the high temperature record was broken in the absence of El Niño conditions at any time during the year in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, as indicated by NOAA’s CPC Oceanic Niño Index. This phenomenon generally tends to increase global temperatures around the globe, yet conditions remained neutral in this region during the entire year and the globe reached record warmth despite this.”

      Yet an El Nino did exist during the latter part of 2014.

  31. As I’ve said elsewhere, these people are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on. They want us to believe two contradictory assertions: (1) 21st-Century scientists couldn’t get 21st-Century temperatures right, but (2) they know to the tenth of a degree how much the global average temperature changed from year to year over the course of the 20th-Century.

    However, like Mann’s “Hockey Stick” and Cook’s “97% consensus” it has served well it’s real purpose: to generate headlines and influence how people (especially politicians) think.

    • exactly, it would belaughable if not for the amount of tax payers money being wasted. i still cannot believe so much air time is given to a bunch of no marks who ended up in the climastrology field as result of not making the grade to do anything worthwhile.

      they must be loving all the attention after being ignored by all and sundry most of their lives ,i bet even some of them have managed to find a girlfriend before reaching the age of 40 as a result.

  32. CHANCE OF DUGGAR RAPES AT 36°4′35″N 94°9′39″W is 3.2% above normal 1850-2014 averages..this is expected to rise thru oct nov dec peroid…

Comments are closed.