Add another one to the huge list of excuses for “the pause” in global temperature. Reader “Al Gorez” emails:
The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years: the satellite data is lying.
And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and “I’d be tempted to beat the crap out of Dr. Pat Michaels” Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails) See more at Breitbart here.
Riiight. Because we all know how reliable their preferred surface temperature measurements are, as illustrated by these examples from NOAA’s USHCN climate monitoring network:
![Detroit_lakes_USHCN[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/detroit_lakes_ushcn1.jpg?resize=480%2C360&quality=83)
![bainbridge_ga_ushcn[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bainbridge_ga_ushcn1.jpg?resize=480%2C360&quality=83)
Those and hundreds of other stations have been encroached upon by heat sinks and heat sources. And, the proof is in the fact that when you get rid of all the garbage temperature monitoring stations like those shown above (which comprise about 90% of the US monitoring network) and use only the unperturbed stations that don’t have biases that need corrections applied, what you are left with is a lower trend:
Comparisons of 30 year trend for compliant Class 1,2 USHCN stations to non-compliant, Class 3,4,5 USHCN stations to NOAA final adjusted V2.5 USHCN data in the Continental United States
What an act of desperation by these politically oriented climate proponents. NASA GISS, an agency founded to do planetary studies in support of the Apollo program, that should be making use of satellite measurements based on NASA’s strategic plan which has shifted heavily to remote sensing (notice that picture of Earth from space on the cover?), still uses this high polluted, highly adjusted surface temperature data…for one reason only: it supports their narrative, and when their narrative is flowing, so does the funding. I’d wager that NASA GISS would be pretty much out of business due to funding cuts if that hadn’t reinvented themselves after the cancellation of the Apollo program and many other missions in the 70’s and 80’s. They just weren’t needed as much.
Stay tuned, there’s more to this story coming. The full transcript of the video follows (h/t to Monckton):
Here is the video from the “Yale Climate Connections”
Transcript of How reliable are satellite temperatures?
Senator Ted Cruz [described in onscreen text as “Climate Denier”, displaying the graph below, shown onscreen in the video]: According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years:
Dr Michael E. Mann, Pennsylvania State University [The following four terrestrial-temperature graphs, from GISS, HadCRUT4, Japan Met and Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature series respectively, were shown on the video for 1-2 seconds each]: When the full data are available, we will find that 2015 was the warmest year that the globe has seen as far back as we have reliable records.
Dr Mann [continuing]: And what’s ironic is, it’s really those satellite datasets that critics like John Christy hold up, that Ted Cruz was emphasizing in that Senate hearing a week ago …
Senator Cruz: The satellite data are the best data we have.
Dr Judith Curry, Georgia Tech: We need to look at the satellite data. I mean, this is the best data that we have.
Dr Mann: It is those datasets that are subject to the most adjustments – that have historically been found to have been biased, um, actually in the direction of too little warming.
Sinclair: For a decade during the 1990s and early 2000s, climate skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer argued that their reading of satellite data showed no atmospheric warming … even a cooling. Finally, a series of studies showed that satellite data was not being correctly interpreted. The problem was friction. Even hundreds of kilometers above the Earth, atmospheric friction slows satellites down and they lose altitude. Every year they were falling about a kilometer closer to the Earth. To derive the temperature, scientists need to know the correct altitude, and without that the results were distorted.
Santer: For many years John Christy and Roy Spencer claimed, based on their analysis, that the lower atmosphere was actually cooling. They were wrong. They had gotten, literally, the sign wrong in adjusting for the effects of satellite orbit drift on the sampling of Earth’s large daily temperature cycle.
Sinclair: In addition, this meant that a satellite that started off measuring the temperature at 2 in the afternoon in a few years was measuring at 6 in the evening, making it look like temperature was cooling, when it had not. Although chastened by their repeated mistakes and failures, Spencer and Christy remain very active in questioning the mainstream science of global warming.
Spencer: I can tell you as a temperature monitoring expert, in 50 years we won’t be able to see the effect.
Limbaugh: I got a note today from our official climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer.
Christy: The regulations being established will do nothing to alter whatever the climate is going to do.
Trenberth: When they made corrections they were still underestimated, and they managed to do that at least three times, I think, which was unfortunate.
Dessler: So what does a satellite actually measure? A satellite doesn’t measure temperature: it measures radiance, which means it measures basically photons of energy that the atmosphere is emitting: in fact, what it really measures is a voltage on some detector, and from that it has to infer radiance, which is these photons, you know, that are coming out of the atmosophere.
Schneider: The problems that these photons are emitted not just from the – from the oxygen atoms as in proportion to their temperature but from the surface, from thick clouds, at different elevations.
Dessler: … and then from that they want to derive temperature. How do they do that? Well, they use a model. Now, they don’t call it a model: they call it a retrieval algorithm. But it’s a model. If you look at the history of the satellite data, the model that has been used has been shown repeatedly to be wrong.
Titley: Dr Christy and Dr Spencer, when they put this out, they have been wrong, I think, at least four consecutive times. Each time the data record has had to be adjusted upward. We used to have a negative trend, and then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend.
Dessler: I don’t want to bash them, because everybody makes mistakes, and I’m going to presume everybody’s being honest, but I would just point out that – imagine the howls we would get if my model predicted it was warmer at night than during the day: you would hear people on the other side just screaming bloody murder: “How can you believe this? It’s, ah, these people are incompetent. How could you possibly believe this model that has the wrong sign of the diurnal cycle in it? The physics is obviously all screwed up.” But of course you don’t hear anybody talking about that with the satellite data. It goes to show you the amount of confirmation bias that’s actually going on in this debate.
Cruz: The satellite data are the best data we have.
Curry: We need to look at the satellite data. I mean, this is the best data that we have.
Dessler: That these people would accept the satellite data completely uncritically because it tells them what they want to hear …
Cruz [displaying the graph below, shown in the video]: You asked about the source of the data on the right chart: it’s actually not Dr Christy’s data, it’s the Remote Sensing Systems – the RSS – data that is up there.
Dr Carl Mears [keeper of the RSS dataset]: I guess it depends on which graph exactly you’re talking about. One of the ones that Senator Cruz likes to show actually uses the data that I make, which is a measurement of the temperature of the middle troposphere over time. The entire dataset actually starts in 1979 and goes to the present. But he probably likes to focus on the part really after 1998. He starts at that time for a very specific reason. And that’s because there’s a huge el Niño then, in ‘97/98, which puts a huge spike in the global temperature. And of course if you start at the top of a hill and you start driving you’re going to go downhill at least in the beginning, and that’s kinda the effect we’re seeing here. You start your time series at a place when it’s really high and it’s pretty easy to get no warming, or even cooling, if you do that.
Titley [at the Senate subcommittee hearing, 8 December 2015]: Ah, 1998, big el Niño, so it’s kind of interesting we start at 18 years: we don’t look at a 15-year dataset or a 10-year dataset or a 20-year dataset. We look at an 18-year dataset.
Cruz [replying to Titley]: I fail to see the significance …
Titley [The graph below is shown in the video]: Senator, it’s not. If you take up that top really big spike and you take that out you start getting the upward bias. And this is what people do when you start looking at these relatively arbitrary times, is you start with a really high number at the left-hand side and that kind of influences your – your, basically, your linear trend:
Titley [continuing: the graph below is shown in the video]: So, when you start looking at things like every decade, you have an upward trend in the data:
Mears [the graph below is shown in the video]: I think the longer the time period you look at the better, and if you look at the longer time period then you get a better idea of what the overall trend is. Senator Cruz focuses on one dataset (mine) from one type of instrument (satellites) and he ignores all the other evidence: for example, the surface temperature record …
Mears [continuing: the graph below is displayed in the video]: … you know, things like the Arctic sea ice declining …
Mears [continuing]: … things like the time of year that plants flower or leaf out or whatever.
Santer [the graph below is shown in the video]: … an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, changes in sea level …
Santer [continuing: the graph below is shown in the video] … changes in the heat content of the global ocean …
Mears: All those things he’s ignored, and he’s just kind of glomming on to this one piece of evidence that supports the story he wants to tell.
Santer: Scientists are looking at moisture, at rainfall, at water vapor, at surface humidity, at the cryosphere, at snow and ice, and all of this is telling an internally and physically consistent story, and that story is, the planet is warming and, despite our best attempts to see whether natural causes can explain that warming, they can’t.
Peter Sinclair [Voice-over out of shot, to Mears onscreen]: Now, you were recently – er – doing some fact-checking for the Daily Show, is that correct?
Mears: That’s correct.
Sinclair: What did they want to know?
Mears: They just wanted to know, you know, they wanted to fine-tune their statement about, you know, whether , you know, the surface temperatures are more accurate or the satellite temperatures are more accurate, and initially they wanted to say something like “But you really shouldn’t trust the satellite temperatures, you should go with these surface temperatures”, and I said, “Well, what I would like to emphasize, you’d really want to look at all the different datasets, so you don’t want to trust only the satellite temperatures, you want to look at the surface temperatures, and – and that sort of thing.
Sinclair: OK, er, has Senator Cruz called you for any fact-checking?
Mears: No, he has not.
Sinclair: OK.
Credits
A production of
Yale Climate Connections
With support from
The Grantham Foundation for The Protection of the Environment
Produced at
Greenman Studio
Midland, MI
Editing, Script, Camera
Peter Sinclair
Interviews
Peter Sinclair
Thanks to
American Geophysical Union
Ben Santer PhD
Livermore National Lab
Andrew Dessler PhD
Texas A&M University
Michael Mann PhD
Pennsylvania State University
Admiral David Titley PhD
Pennsylvania State University
Carl Mears PhD
Remote Sensing Systems
Kevin Trenberth PhD
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Judith Curry PhD
Georgia Tech University
Video
BBC
NASA
CSPAN
Stanford University
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh My! There are 1305 registered satellites in space as of 9-1-15. We depend on them for critical information using similar technologies as the temperature satellites. We use the data from them for communications, earth observations, navigation, earth and space science, etc.
Scientists use satellites for sea level measurements, weather, ice mass, ice extent, ocean temperature, global positioning, many military and commercial purposes, etc. etc.
So, are all these satellites using similar technology lying? I don’t think so.
We should immediately get rid of all satellites. A satellite launch is even worse for the environment than jet travel.
And we would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky satellites.
You bunch of meddling kids!
They put up the satellites, and apart from the 1998 El Nino, the world stopped warming.
They set up USCRN, and the USA stopped warming.
They sent up the CO2 satellite, and the co2 high levels are mostly away from industrial areas.
Every evenly-space, unadjusted, reliable measurement system makes a total mess of the AGW farce.
What the OCO2 satellite shows is that there are regions that are seasonally either CO2 sources or CO2 sinks, such as the northern extratropical forests. The northern extratropical forests sink huge amounts of CO2 from mid May to the end of summer (CO2 there changes from high to low), and resource that CO2 from fall to early May (CO2 there changes from low to high). This shows up in the annual squiggle of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa. The seasonal sourcing/sinking of the northern forests is at a higher rate than anthropogenic CO2 emissions – but seasonally oscillating essentially equally in both directions. For global atmospheric CO2 year-in year-out, nature has as a net effect been removing CO2 from the atmosphere since 1959.
“…but seasonally oscillating essentially equally in both directions…”
There is no evidence for this. It is merely asserted.
“For global atmospheric CO2 year-in year-out, nature has as a net effect been removing CO2 from the atmosphere since 1959.”
Has no impact on the argument for attribution.
The pause is calculated back from the present ie to see how far back can one go from today before you get a statistically significant positive global temperature trend?
The Satelites agree with balloons (radiosonde) data. Confirmation or coincidence?
There are 5 standards of surface measurement from 1/2 (good) and 3/4/5 (poor). They disagree with each other and with the satelite and radiosonde data and trends.
They said none of this in the video.
(Science Teacher to a 6th grade class after showing the above Climateers video-)
“Boys and girls, do you remember our recent lessons on how using temperature anomalies to measure temperature changes is the least accurate way, and often used DECEPTIVELY, to represent actual temperature increases on a graph?”
Class: “Yes”.
Teacher-“And what did the ALL of the graphs in the video, including the 4 graphs referred to by Dr. Mann specifically, use to represent temperature changes?”
Class-“Anomalies”
Teacher- “Correct. Now, according to all of the scientists in the video, the anomaly data used by the RSS scientists is even LESS accurate than the anomaly data used by GISS, HadCRUT4, Japan Met etc because the data collected by the RSS scientists wasn’t adjusted to correct for friction and drop rates. Let’s look at how poorly the RSS data performs against all of the other satellite data” (shows graph linked to below)
Teacher-“Class, based on the information from all 4 satellite sources used in that graph, would ANY graph tracking the past 18+ years of satellite data using ANY of the satellite sources produce a warming trend over the past 18+ years? ”
Class- “Nope”.
Teacher-“Correct. So if the RSS data is bad, and it’s trends almost match the others, then the GISS data is bad, the HadCRUT4 data is bad, and the UAH data is bad too.”
“Since Dr. Mann seems to have a lot of faith in the actual land/surface temperature anomalies, tomorrow we’re going to discuss how accurate the surface temperature data really is. We will compare surface temperature anomalies to actual temperature readings taken from surface stations, and then we will examine how Mr. Anthony Watts spent years collecting photos of the land surface stations, and recently wrote a terrific paper that proves that the majority of our land temp stations are cited too poorly to record temperatures accurately. “
I think when it comes to reliability of data that tree rings would be a good substitute for satellite data that sounds like progress.
I’ve been using records, old 78’s showed it was colder before 45’s which were colder than 33s. However relatively modern technology like CD’s and Blu-ray DVD’s are useless for temperature measurement.
LOL! som….you made me laugh outloud.
Satellites are relied upon to measure such things as sea level rise and sea ice thickness. There are satellites currently orbiting and returning huge amounts of useful data from Mars and Saturn. Many other past orbiter missions to many of the solar system bodies, including the New Horizons mission to Pluto, have been regarded as hugely successful. Satellites have made, are making, and will make countless measurements that improve our understanding of our Solar System.
But somehow these guys have decided that satellites just simply cannot be relied upon to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere accurately. I’m sure that comes as a disappointment to the thousands of engineers who build the satellites, and to the thousands of scientists who have used the volumous results from countless satellite missions for their research.
“I’m sure that comes as a disappointment to the thousands of engineers who build the satellites, and to the thousands of scientists who have used the volumous results from countless satellite missions for their research.”
Why? Those thousands of engineers and scientists should only be disappointed in ONE THING-the inability of these desk monkeys to know their headwinds from their asteroids! Those thousands of engineers and scientists need to be SHOWN this video so they can collectively rise and ridicule every single “climate scientist” who agrees with them in any way. If they don’t, THAT will come as a disappointment to the hundreds of MILLIONS of people on this planet that paid for all that research and data in the first place.
I for one, who helped develop the instruments flown on the RSS satellites, have seen this video. Carl Mears was in High School while I was busily hanging my @ss out over the void helping NOAA make them work and I’d like to meet Carl someday out behind the hangar for a few choice words…
Last year when Boston was buried in 100+ inches of snow, Trenberth and Mann were both quoted in WaPo claiming that the record snowfall was the result of warm water in the Atlantic increasing the moisture in the air, i.e., wet snow.
Actual scientists melted the snow measuring the water content and determined it was normal precipitation but the extreme cold caused amplification (see chart http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-are-snow-ratios/4786333) to roughly a 30 to 1 ratio.
Climate scientists that don’t understand snow should be laughed out of every venue they show up at.
How their peers allow these two to still sit at the forefront of this “movement” is beyond belief. They discredit themselves every time they step forward. Bizarre.
The point there is WHY are their peers allowing these two to discredit the entire field without saying something about it?
Human shields.
The ones standing behind have a better chance of slinking away unnoticed when it all collapses if they haven’t drawn attention to themselves.
Felflames, good point. The petty thieves don’t get much scrutiny when the Madoff’s are stealing millions/billions
They did quite a hatchet job on Spencer in that video – focusing the camera below his face, showing him talking without voice, with time lapse motion, then suddenly adding voice etc., trying to make him look threatening and unhinged. Yale should be very ashamed to have their name associated with such blatant, primitive propaganda tricks
People are not taught to recognise thing like propaganda anymore. That is why “spin” has been so effective since the progressives took hold of education and removed critical thought training from curricula. We have gone through the post cold war years in free societies thinking “c0mmunism can’t happen to us”, but we don’t seem to recognize the agenda behind the “war on climate change”.
Dawtgtomis-
“People are not taught to recognise thing like propaganda anymore. That is why “spin” has been so effective since the progressives took hold of education and removed critical thought training from curricula. We have gone through the post cold war years in free societies thinking “c0mmunism can’t happen to us”, but we don’t seem to recognize the agenda behind the “war on climate change”.
I disagree. I think that is EXACTLY why the older the group of people involved in a survey is, the more they reject AGW theory. I think they DO recognize propaganda outright because they were kids when the communists tried before. And their parents talked about it all the time, they learned to see it as children. Some of them have taught their own kids (us) how to recognize it too. And some of them dropped the ball and didn’t teach their kids (others). If we don’t keep that ability alive, it will soon be gone. But I think it’s the very reason that Americans aren’t buying into the AGW scare…it’s been sold to them using propaganda.
When ever anyone tells me I must act now before its too late and the act I must perform involves opening my wallet, I already know that’s a scam.
Does anybody remember how many ‘excuses for the pause’ this makes?
I think it’s about 68. The funny thing is, when they aren’t busy making up excuses for it, they are instead busy denying it exists. I guess they can’t make up their minds.
BC, good observation. Plus many.
From Wikipedia, on “Alternative pleading:”
“Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”
I’m no expert but I have begun to wonder if we can measure the temperature of the Earth at all…or at least to the degree of accuracy that is being advertised.
Kind of important to be able to do this, huh?
nope….
yes…sorta important…but no where near important enough to care about 1/10 degrees
These self appointed climate gurus seem to have overlooked that the radiosonde data are in approximate agreement with the satellite data, at least as far as the pause goes. You can’t blame that on orbital shift.
Wasn’t Dessler’s last submission to GRL heavily corrected by Roy Spencer?
I looked at the video and found that they are pushing false global temperature data. To start with, Michael Mann shows an AR5 global temperature curve fleetingly in the beginning. I stopped the action and saw that his temperature curve for the eighties and nineties indicates warming when in fact there was no warming for 18 years, from 1979 to 1997. That makes this time period a hiatus, just as long as the present 21st century hiatus is. You don’t see it because the ground-based temperature consortium, in this case GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT3, took it upon themselves to cover up the hiatus with a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” Fortunately they still do not control the satellites and the hiatus is shown accurately in satellite temperature curves. I am not even the only one who has noticed this particular hiatus. Fred Singer noticed it too and lord Monckton calls it a “Singer event” because of that. To deny an observable fact in science is an out and out psudo-scientific trick. But then, he already got his pseudo-science credentials by cherry-picking temperatures that give an imaginary shape to his own temperature curves. And Admiral David Titley, Ph.D., is another one who makes weird suggestions in order to downplay an existing hiatus. In this case he claims that if you do not include the super El Nino of 1998 as part of the twenty-first century hiatus the the rest of the data that belong to the hiatus will have an upward, warming slope, indicating warming. He even shows this warming curve.. Unfortunately for him it is worthless because I checked those data and they do not have an ipward slope but a downward slope of a tenth of a degree for the decade from 2002 to 2012 I suggest that he read the first four chapters in my book before attempting to interpret any mire temperature data. And since we are dealing with hiatuses here let us remember that the greenhouse effect does not work during a hiatus. This means that the length of the hiatus must be subtracted from the total length of temperature curves that aretheoretically eligible for creating greenhouse warming.
Well, at least this little exercise helped me confirm my understanding of the issues. As I went through the transcript I was able to easily point out exactly how they were being dishonest. The comments above reaffirm most of what I saw.
This video could be turned into an own goal. Produce a new video that uses this video with regular breaks where the outright deceptions are noted. Put it up on youtube and have skeptic sites reference it constantly. Get it on Fox News as well.
Let their own lies be the source of their downfall.
It is becoming very important to get the new Watts et al paper published. It helps refute this kind of propaganda very effectively. However, until it is published it will just be ignored.
Looks like Cruz and Smith has a number of CAGW devotees that can be invited to their hearings.
To answer questions about their ‘expertise’ on satellite and ground temperature measurements. Should be very enlightening.
Maybe Spencer could ask the questions?
Could hardly understand a word of it because of the offensively loud music in the background.
Did anybody else notice Carl Mears body language, he didn’t believe what he was saying and appeared under duress
Maybe duress in general, but more specifically he just looked like he was lying to me. So did the rest of them. That creates stress and I expect he knows one day this will all come crashing down on him and destroy what’s left of his reputation, or maybe he’ll just turn into a raving old fart like Hansen has. Either way, it’s got to be difficult, there’s no chance it won’t come out and he must know that.
He should be the weakest link Cruz should call him to congress
“It doesn’t matter how reliable your instruments, it doesn’t matter how good they are, if they disagree with theory, they’re wrong”
– with apologies to Richard Feynman
Sarcasm is a low form of humor.
Humor is a measure of taste, wit a measure of intelligence 🙂
LOL, Tony G 🙂 — wit with a point!
(@ur momisugly Dan P.: jealousy is an ugly thing)
Figure 7 of:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
indicates that the surface-adjacent part of the lower troposphere warmed since 1979 by .02, maybe .03 degree/decade more than the satellite-measured lower troposphere did.
I think much of this was because decrease of ice and snow cover in areas with lack of convection when iced/snowed caused the surface to warm. The average lapse rate increased in the lowest 1-1.5 or so km of the troposphere.
Or, can someone say what percentage of radiosondes are launched in urban heat islands that are big enough to affect the air a few hundred meters up and that have grown significantly since 1979?
I didn’t watch the video, just read the transcript, and wow is that a lot of half truths all strung together. The problem with half truths is that it takes considerably more work to refute them than outright lies rwquire.
Perhaps the most telling half truth was the manner in which the satellite data was called into question. First they yap on about arbitrary end points as if these were cherry picked. They aren’t. Monckton’s regular column points out that they are calculated from the present working backward to the longest period of time with a zero trend. But in fact even THAT is not a correct rebuttal.
The arbitrary end points were first defined by none other than Phil Jones of the CRU who stated that a pause of 10 years or more would falsify the models and then Santer did another study and said it was actually 15 years and then he did ANOTHER study and said it would be 17 years…So the interval to falsify the models was DEFINED by Santer, it isn’t cherry picking or arbitrary at all, it is just pointing out that the more current 18+ years meets THEIR definition for falsifying THEIR models.
Sadder still is the hand waving by Dessler and cohorts babbling on about they don’t measure temperature, they measure photons that come from who knows where and hit a detector that converts to temperature and they’ve had to adjust them four times! FOUR! First he described the process in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from magic, then he questions the accuracy while ignoring the improved calibration results of those adjustments and ignoring the adjustments to the land based temperatures which by now are too many to count. Four, hah!
This is a video put together by people who are adept at misleading, and to do that, you have to have sound knowledge of what you are trying to discredit. In other words, they know what they do and I do not forgive them.
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for that superb summary which – in my opinion is worthy of being elevated to a head post.
Richard
Indeed….my biggest irritation with the video and the recent Cruz lead congressional session is hat the point was not made that in order to avoid cheery picking of start points you star from the right hand side of the graph and work backwards in order to answer the question; “how far back can you go before you get a trend significantly different from 0.”
This avoids the cheery-picking accusation. And the point that there was a large El Niño skewing the results is offset by the subsequent La Niña, something that is often not pointed out.
They also neglected to mention the left side of the graph doesn’t start during the ’98 El Nino, but a year before it, which makes the entire bit about starting the measure at a high point a flat out lie.
Skeptics need to use this video to prove beyond any doubt that AGW promoting scientists are dishonest. The media is likely to use this video far and wide. Skeptics need a rebuttal video of the form I mention above. In fact, it would be nice for Dr. Spencer et al to have Lawyer send letters to the various scientists asking for a published retraction of some of their statements with an implied libel suit. The entire part where Spencer and Christy are attacked is completely dishonest and easily proven.
I mean, it’s an Emily Litella moment. They go on and on about the scientists track record and then admit the data being used by Cruz comes from RSS. How silly is that? It’s like attacking Einstein for his “God doesn’t play dice” remark and claiming that calls into question all of his other work and the work of anyone who has used his work. Does that make any sense at all.
The claims of cherry picking are also hilarious. The only way to cherry pick temperature data (ignoring volcanoes) is to start a trend or end a trend where you use just half of an El Nino – La Nina pair. If you include both events they usually cancel each other out. This can be easily seen in the pause data by comparing the trend right after the complete ENSO period. The trend is actually more downward if you do this. Including the ENSO data actually makes the trend more upward.
So, what do they do next? They show Titley’s chart that precisely cherry picks only the 1999 La Nina as the starting point and ends with only the 2010 El Nino leaving out the other half of both events. An example of exactly what they stated was wrong.
The reason for this video is clear. If you look at Santer et al 2011 you clearly see they define 17 years without any warming as a falsification criteria (95% criteria) for AGW as it is currently defined. The pause of over 17 years has met this criteria and then some. A skeptic video would highlight that the peer reviewed paper authors include both Santer and Mears. The video could include a nice except from the Feynman lectures where he concludes “if it does not agree with experimentation, it is wrong”. After all, the pause is clearly an experiment and the theory as defined by climate models has clearly been shown to be wrong.
This propaganda video is absolutely priceless material for skeptics. We need a video production guru to set this up . We could probably crowd source the material used in the rebuttal video. I would be more than willing to help fund the effort as I’m sure others would.
I have a video production studio and I do documentary film. I’d be happy to donate my equipment and time but there’s a much more talented producer named J. D. King (Vicebear – Cold Hard Truth Never Melts, Blue) that I’d recommend as a better choice. I’m vying for position as an associate producer on his most recent effort, I can’t make a higher recommendation than that. He’d eat these people for lunch.
He’d. Sort of takes the punch out of the line though doesn’t it?
I don’t have a studio but I have experience producing/directing. I also know a little something about crowdfunding. If there are enough people interested I would be happy to help.
Attn Mods: feel free to forward my email info to any serious inquiries on this.
Their repeated refusal to accept the falsification of their hypothesis is atrocious, an absolute insult to the institution of science — their complete abandonment of the principles of scientific objectivity has turned cautious evidence-based policymaking into baldfaced policy-based evidencemaking.
Science cannot progress under these circumstances, they are taking billions of taxpayer dollars and turning us back into superstitious pre-industrial mystics, unable to offend the priesthoods they serve.
For shame.
TallDave writes: “they are taking billions of taxpayer dollars and turning us back into superstitious pre-industrial mystics”
For me, the “tell”, the real panty dropper, was when they signed up the Pope. After that, it was all bad with no hope of ever getting any better.
It really is game time now. If these folks aren’t stopped, our next exit is the collapse of the Roman Empire. It gets very ugly after this.
Time, methinks, for NASA to get out of satellites and all that spacey stuff, employ some glassblowers and start making thermometers.
Could be a bit tricky deciding upon what to fill them with; mercury, being toxic, is a no-no while alcohol may upset certain religious sensitivities but, in time, they should be able to crack that problem.
Onwards and UPWARDS ( as per modern temperature records!)
So in addition to conveniently finding that long lost global warming down the back of a filing cabinet just in time for Paris they now set about questioning the reliability of the only sanity checks we have?
It must really sting that they are largely confined to ‘homogenizing’ the pre-satellite era. Can’t have that now can we?.
These people really don’t care what they do to Science in the name of promoting the ’cause’.
At least now I know what well funded climate denial looks like.
At least now I know what well funded climate denial looks like.
If corruption of science is justified for a greater cause we are on a dangerous road. I hope it’s not true, but in any case it doesn’t hurt to demand what’s up people’s sleeves. They should have plotted an IPCC model mean hockey stick against the 37-year satellite plot. Then they should have zoomed out to the 1000-year hockey stick and had Mann come back and answer some questions. After all, Mears said the further back one looks the more accurate the picture.
Santer’s 17 years to falsify AGW is also a disastrous own goal for alarmists. What a shambles the whole charade is, yet so far they escape justice. It will catch up with them eventually.