Steve McIntyre always told us to “watch the pea under the thimble” when it comes to climate change pronouncements, this is one of those cases. Yesterday, to much media fanfare, wailing, and gnashing of teeth NOAA pronounced that 2015 was the hottest year on record, ever! There’s only one problem with that…the Internet never forgets. Back in 1997 after the super El Nino made global temperatures soar, NOAA/NCDC produced this report:
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713 (h/t to Tom Nelson)
Archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20150504164341/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures. Since we know the 1997 El Nino caused a record high spike in temperature, that means that for that 30 year period, there was no warmer GAT than 62.45°F up until that time.
Yet in 2015, the claim for the “warmest ever” GAT is different:
They say:
During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512
( Note that they link in that quote, to an image which does not exist: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201501-201512.png )
In the 2015 Annual State of the Climate report referenced above, NOAA says that the temperature was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. That’s an important number. While they don’t reference the absolute value of the 20th century average temperature for the globe in that report, we can find it here in the November 2015 State of the Climate Report:
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511
==========================================================================
UPDATE: WUWT commenter “brian0918” points out that in other reports, NOAA give the 20th century global average temperature as 57°F – That may be they are referring to the 20th century average for the month of November in the initial report I cited, but don’t make it clear in the language used, or it may be a typo. Even so, it is still lower than 62.45°F. I made the corrections in the title and in the body of this post.
==========================================================================
So here is the math for the claims, for 2015, to get the number, we have to add the yearly variation from the 20th century average to it to get the absolute number:
GAT for 20th century = 55.2°F
GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F
GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F
In any universe, 56.82°F is lower than 62.45°F by 5.63 degrees Fahrenheit.
======================================================
UPDATE: (using the 57°F 20th century GAT mentioned in comments)
GAT for 20th century = 57°F
GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F
GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 57°F = 58.62°F
In any universe, 58.62°F is lower than 62.45°F by 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit.
======================================================
Of course, apologists and NOAA itself will run to their statistical hidey-hole and say that the 1997 value isn’t about the 20th century temperature comparison, but only compared to the “30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.”, and therefore the comparison is not a valid one. (Meanwhile NASA GISS uses a 1951 to 1980 baseline for their historical temperature claims today, which is an arbitrary choice) But, I say it doesn’t matter what they say. NOAA is charged with presenting factual evidence in the context of climatic history, and when they make claims of absolute temperature, they need to be darn sure they get it right. Otherwise, the press, supporters of the cause like Seth Borenstein at AP, and the folks at the Washington Post just blindly regurgitate what NOAA says without questioning it.
To give an example of how the media can’t even do basic fact checking anymore, I calculated the GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F Simple math, right? Yet somehow, in press reports, that number got transposed to 58.62°F. Just look:
(UPDATE: If the 57F 20th century GAT value is used referenced in updates above, then we get the 58.62 number that is cited – while my math was correct, I relied on the context from the November, SOTC report, which was not clear, I’ve made the appropriate corrections.)
It appears that the source of that 58.62 number in error was Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press, though I can’t tell if he made the error himself, or quoted NOAA. This is what he wrote in the AP story:
NOAA said 2015’s temperature was 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (14.79 degrees Celsius), passing 2014 by a record margin of 0.29 degrees. That’s 1.62 degrees above the 20th-century average. NASA, which measures differently, said 2015 was 0.23 degrees warmer than the record set in 2014 and 1.6 degrees above 20th century average.
The point to be made here is that NOAA professes to be an expert at telling the public what the temperature is, when so many contradictions and errors creep into what is presented to the public, we should all learn to take what NOAA says, and what the media says with a grain of salt.
When you look at temperature that isn’t biased by continuous adjustments, such as NOAA’s highly questionable fiddling with sea surface temperature data this year, you find that 2015 was not the hottest record at all according to the U.S> Climate Reference Network data, which is a state of the art system designed to need no “corrections” of any kind. 2015 comes in third for the USA:
While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made. NOAA doesn’t seem to like referencing this state of the art USCRN system in their public reports, preferring instead to rely on their old, messy, error prone, and highly adjusted COOP/USHCN network which has been shown to have significant biases. They claim in their SOTC report from Jan 2016 that it was the 2nd hottest year on record for the CONUS:
In 2015, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.4°F, 2.4°F above the 20th century average. This was the second warmest year in the 121-year period of record for the CONUS.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513
As I’ve said before, NOAA can’t seem to keep historical temperatures static, and thus the claims made referencing them, accurate. They change from month to month, and when there is no firmament to the history they present, why trust them?
Dr. John Christy said it best:
“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”
If NOAA can’t keep a simple claim accurate, such as what the GAT was in 1997 versus 2015, why indeed should we trust them? We shouldn’t, we should question everything, always, because it seems the global temperature is not only nothing more than a statistical construct, it is as fickle as the political wind.
Meanwhile, satellite temperature data, which NOAA and NASA don’t like to use, shows the Earth as third warmest in 2015.
I’ll have more on this story via updates.
UPDATE: Dr Richard Lindzen notes:
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is truly pathetic. How we can have a government that abuses like its power like this is beyond me. Somehow we need to have a watchdog in place prevent this kind of abuse of power.
This says it best:
co2 – also for you – could you check the corroborating data for the same years, from JMT and NASA/GIS?
I’m keen to hear how you regard the extent to which those independent sets corroborate the NOAA data, sufficiently – or not – for them to be incorporated in future analysis.
caitiecaitie:
You are snowing this thread with your disinformation about “corroborating data”.
There is no possibility of a calibration standard for global average temperature (GAT) so there is no possibility of independent assessment of an estimate of GAT.
And aboveI explain why estimates of GAT from different teams are not independent and not comparable.
Richard
NOAA’s “Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000” show the global Combined Mean Surface Temp. for last century (1901-2000) to be 57.0 F.
Go to this URL: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Then click on “Mean Temperature Estimates” between “FAQ” and “Gridded Dataset” to see the average temperature figures instead of anomalies.
Here’s NOAA’s global surface anomalies charted from 1997 through 2015.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1997-2015
Hottest, schmottest. On any slowly climbing graph or trend, like the recovery from the LIA, the latest year is always most likely the highest. And the amount in this case < the margin of error!
Learn how to use the website. You chose “previous 12 months” which shows monthly records. You need to pick Annual which shows yearly totals
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=climdiv¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=12
and 2015 is indeed second highest after 2012.
And Climdiv gores back to 1895, though selecting USCRN shows the relevant years anyway
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=12
It seems you are the one confused, not NOAA.
Excellent summary FG.
To e complete, would you also obtain the data for the same years, from JMT and NASA. These are independent measurments and can be used to corroborate one another.
I’ll invite you to report here on your determinations of the corroborating data, and if you regard the NOAA data sufficiently corroborated to justify a demand it be included in ongoing analysis.
Or you could just not – because that is easier, and it leads you to the conclusion you want, if you dont.
caitiecaitie:
You say to Forrest Gardener
No, that is wrong on two counts.
Firstly, the ‘surface data’ use the same source data so cannot be considered “independent”.
Secondly, the different versions of global average temperature (GAT) are unique so cannot be used to indicate anything about each other. Each team that provides estimates of GAT uses its own and unique definition of GAT and, therefore, provides different weightings and different homogenisations to the source data (and, incidentally, the teams also alter their definitions most months so change their past data with this effect). Different definitions of GAT provide different values of GAT (apples and oranges are fruit but an apple is not an orange).
Richard
And of course they never mention the obvious: the same global warming has been going on for centuries, naturally, and at about the same rate.
So the implication is that the recent warming must be AGW.
Lying by implication, no?
I’ll put this up (again!) as it seems quite relevant here … (and it’s in C, not F!)
Global temperature? An elusive and ever-changing figure:
b>1988: 15.4°C
Der Spiegel, based on data from NASA.
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false
1990: 15.5°C
James Hansen and 5 other leading scientists claimed the global mean surface temperature was 15.5°C. Also Prof. Christian Schönwiese claimed the same in his book “Klima im Wandel“, pages 73, 74 and 136. 15.5°C is also the figure given by a 1992 German government report, based on satellite data.
1999 14.6°C
Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies – Land and Marine Instrumental Records Jones Parker Osborn and Briffa http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2004: 14.5°C
Professors Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf in their book: “Der Klimawandel”, 1st edition, 2006, p 37, based on surface station data from the Hadley Center.
2007: 14.5°C
The IPCC WG1 AR4 (pg 6 of bmbf.de/pub/IPCC2007.pdf
2010: 14.5°C
Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf in their book: Der Klimawandel, 7th edition, 2012, pg 37 based on surface station data.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2012 14.0 °C
Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C. http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html
2013 Wikipedia: 14.0°C
Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/
Co2 goes up.Temps flat for nearly two decades. Models unanimously predict unprecedented warming. FAIL!
“Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.”
Comments?
The baseline temp is only used for calculating the anomaly, not the global temperature. Do you understand what a baseline temp or anomaly is?
brian0918.
“Do you understand what a baseline temp or anomaly is?”
Yes.
What is your point?
Once in a while i read this web site as one of the last post standing against the hypocrisy.
But I listen to this CatieCatie and i realized it/she/he must be a sad, lonely person. Having so much time to spend in endless debates where only the personal ego is satisfied, is a clear indication that is a “misunderstood” educated individual with no use to this world. It must hurt.
-Do you actually do something useful for this world, other than consuming energy to write back on a computer that works with the energy produced…. ?
I bet this CC contributes in equal amount to the global warming it/she/he so effervescently blames everyone else for and she enjoys the goods and services that produce the “destruction” of the world.
Somebody said, that since alarmists believe that is us humans that contribute to GW, they should lead by example and…
Talk and numbers are not going to help the world. We end up just paying money that disappear like morning mist.
-When you produce something useful or have a brilliant idea to make things better, then sent a link and I am sure everyone here will applaud and praise you.
These are my thoughts and people like you wont change them, so dont bother replying (unless your ego wont let you sleep), because I wont read; I have a life.
martin,
You have ‘cc’ pegged. More than two hundred comments in 24 hours!! ‘cc’ takes trolling to an entirely new level.
And you’re right, cc is a very sad and pathetic person. Reminds me of the site pest ‘David Socrates’ who has posted here incessantly, using similar language.
Which makes me wonder…
Yes! D.B. — so glad you mentioned D.S.! I was trying and trying to remember the troll who often began a comment with, “Hi, So and So” or “Hello, So and So” and who sounded “young” and was very ignorant of science and LOVED to talk about how the commenter he was needling was feeling, “that makes you upset” — “you’re angry” — “that bothers you” — you can almost hear the ev1l, idiotic, giggle when he (or she or they) writes that. After awhile, I wish Anthony would just give us all a break from the incessant babbling and gibberish — it has to be refuted to prevent misleading the uninformed and it is just annoying after awhile.
My impression of “cc” is that s/he is very bright , very opinionated and possibly a well educated student more of the history and philosophy of science than of actual physical science such as geophysics or meteorology, since most of the “cc” posts concern the methods of science rather than analyses of the actual quantitative data .
I noticed that following a blizzard of her posts the subsequent posting from many persons ( too many to identify individually) reverted to a quantitative discussion of the actual data . This made me wonder whether “cc” is perhaps one of the “sceptics” who , disappointed that in the wake of COP21 too much attention was being given to the politics of AGW and too little to the science , (although given the media coverage of the event that was probably inevitable and excusable), decided to sharply poke the scientists on this site into returning to the mainstream activity of debating the science.
mikewaite:
You suggest
Absolutely not! The troll reviles the science: please read the subthread that begins here and ends with a summary by JohnB.
Richard
Richard , I took your advice and looked back at the subthread you mentioned and can appreciate your annoyance at my seeming to be too kind to the lady/ gentleman aka “cc”.
My suggestion that she is an agent provocateur/euse, intend to get posters to up their game was not intended to be taken too seriously. Her comments actually took me down memory lane ( not always the road best travelled) to the time when we graduate students would gather at coffee time to talk , largely nonsense, about the “meaning” of Heisenberg and Godel when applied to the observed world .
Be tolerant to her/him , all too soon the real world of science will close in , dominated too often by worries about funding , jealous colleagues, bosses who won’t listen to your ideas , and the person who pips you at the post before you get your own paper in.
Has there been any justifiable response to the this article between the higher temps in 1997 and the claim of the warmest year ever by cc?
To me NOAA looks like they’ve been caught in a lie. And worse they keep trying to say it by moving the sources and adjusting their data.
No such thing as a global temperature.
Next.
What’s even funnier, there is no such thing as a global AVERAGE temperature!
Patrick MJD — hard to connect on WUWT — just want you to know I’m still praying about the job. Hope all is well, “Auntie Patrick” (tell “Grandpa __” hello (smile)). At least you have more time to play the bass, these days! Well!! There ARE two sides to our being “between jobs,” you know!
Janice
Thank you Janice. I have no idea if there was any Devine intervention however, I started a contract on the 11th with the Dept. of Corrective Services. The irony in this would have you laughing out loud, serial! Hope you find something soon too.
Patrick! I’m so happy for you. Even if it is not your dream job (or, lol, dream workplace), a decent job! Cool. Thanks for responding! (and for your kind wishes, too)
#(:))
Govn’t agency Janice (And the irony still makes me laugh). This is my second contract with an Australian Govn’t agency, I now know why people like to work for Govn’t. It’s too easy!!! And to be frank, at my age, I like it too! No on-call. No “working from home”. No 24×7 availability. No being paid 37.5hrs/week and working 90hrs/week. None of that usual corporate dross. Stress and workload in my life now is so low I can have some life!
Mods, I am quite happy for you to pass on my email addy to Janice, if you do that of course.
….no such thing as a global average temperature….
Granted. At least in that a rather meaningless, hugely error barred number it would be, if calculated.
However, if it is possible to utilize a certain well defined data set to tell us the average temperature anomaly between one nominated date and another nominated date is x, it must
be completely possible to actually calculate a ‘global average’ number (applicable to that data set) for each period. The data must exist.
The great variety of answers provided over the years are primarily a fair indication of how much the data sets have changed with time. Which does little to add confidence to the notion we now have it correctly tagged, and actually know how much it has changed over time.
It is perhaps (a slightly disturbing) coincidence, that the ‘global average temperature’ has steadily declined with estimates over time.
Yes, I know how to calculate an average. And one can calculate an average given a dataset of numbers…so it’s a made up number that means absolutely nothing in real terms especially with regards to temperature. Here in Australia the media weather forecasters always say X degrees measured temperature on any given days is above/below average. Meaningless!
Considering that the measurements regarding Global Warming/Climate Change such as temperature, sea level and CO2 levels range from the mid Nineteenth Century to the present day, what is the accuracy if earlier readings compared to those of today?
System error alone would render any comparison to be useless in comparison of readings, or aren’t “climate scientists” required to study measurements?
Just a question from a guy who remembers having to calibrate a 100-ft tape every morning, before taking any measurements!
Angels on the pinhead again.
The estimated Average Global Temperature is always shown without error bars.
The idiocy of an average global temperature is beyond parody.
Meaningless in so many ways.
To then trumpet “Warmest Year ever”based on a fraction of a degreeF demeans the institutions and mocks the poor taxpayers funding them.
Even if we could estimate the average surface temperature of this globe using todays measuring systems, a doubtful proposition, what might we compare this amazing metric to?
1850?
1900?
1950?
What standard is at play?
If, as the Team IPCC ™ keeps insisting, past weathermen were not able to accurately record temperature, what should the range of doubt be?
2 degrees/station, 5 degrees from spatial infilling?
They try to play this from every angle, they defend their need to adjust the past, then claim great past precision..
Very much they act like compulsive liars, who lack the intelligence to remember what they told who.
Could anyone point me to a site that explains the assumptions and methodology by which this fictitious metric is created?
What is the official range of uncertainty for this icon?
John, Just read this regarding global temperature.
As for 62.45 degrees F for 1997 or 1998: This is what flunks. I think some government employee or the like made some mistake somewhere. I see low criticism of global surface temperature being generally 14-15 degree C in the post-1950 timeframe, and the great El Nino of 1997-1998 spiked it by less than 1 degree C.
The global warming alarmists, including the IPCC, have a negative predictive track record. Every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.
Unlike the warmists, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT actually has a positive track record.
This elegantly-written 2001 comment by Lindzen is worth repeating:
“We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future…”
“Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty – far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…”
Source:
Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty
By Richard S. Lindzen,
Wall Street Journal
June 11, 2001
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
And of course the whole GAT discussion omits two terrifying facts to the CAGW proponents. One, even accepting the FUBAR surface record it is still far below what the models predicted. Two, the satellite record is intimately defensible and, according to CAGW theory, it is suppose to warm 20 percent faster then the surface, not 100 percent less. Therefore whatever is causing the increase in the surface record, (IMV it is methodology of humans) it is not and cannot be the atmospheric increase in CO2.
I agree David. Any other line of defense for CAGW is political. Either way anyone looks at this, temperatures are falling. If those numbers are right, the actual temperature has fallen 1.5 C and even more if co2 behaves the way CAGW claims it does. That is a significant decline in temperature.
In the scientific community, some organisation is going to have to go against CAGW. That would severely disrupt the freight train mentality that CAGW has going on in the press and media.
Thanks, Anthony. What a shocker! 😉
We have been shown the pirouettes and contortions NOAA uses to bend the hiatus, we have been shown what the El Niño is doing, what it has done in the past.
I have taken to disregard most of NOAA’s work, that I partially paid for. How sad!
There is an interesting analysis at http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/01/temperature-anomalies-are-naturally.html. While Dr Motl disagrees with Anthony, he points out a changed methodology. Now NASA adjusts both data and methodology. They are not yet adjusting the audience, but they are almost there.
Trollspeak: “The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet”
Actually, the oil industry is supported by everyone who guys gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, every product derived from these substances, and every government that collects taxes from the production, refinement, distilling, movement and use of those products.
But nice try, Leonardo. Don’t you have to catch your private plane back to your private yacht your shell company registered off-shore leases from an oil magnate?
The oil industry supports Government. In California about one dollar per gallon goes to state or federal government. Government makes about five times more from oil, then big oil.
Keep “all” of your past (and original) data folks. The Government just loves to change it!
So they give the global average as 13.9C. I recall some years back, Hansen had said it was 15C and then he changed it 14C (making anomalies stick up another 1C, I guess). You know if you get too fancy with your hockey stick handling, you can score a goal on your own team.
After much reading here and elsewhere, I would like to offer a different analogy. Suppose that in 1998, it was assumed that Mount Everest was 29,025 feet high. And the people knew a certain tide gauge was right at sea level in 1997. They could then say in 1998 that the sea level was 29,025 feet below Mount Everest. Now suppose that more accurate measurements in 2015 showed that Mount Everest was actually 29,029 feet high, and suppose they now said the sea level in 2015 was 29,028 feet below Mount Everest. On the surface, it looks like sea level dropped 3 feet, but it actually rose a foot due to the new Mount Everest height calculation.
Now back to the NOAA situation. Thermometers read temperature and not anomalies. How did they know the temperature in 1997 if they did not average thousands of global thermometers in some appropriate manner? And if they compared these readings over the last 30 years or whatever, then they could say if, and by how much 1997 was above average. In hindsight, they were about 4º F off in their estimate of the 1997 temperature! And to make things worse, what was the preindustrial temperature from which we are supposedly not to go above 3.6º F?
“2015 comes in third for the USA.” No it doesn’t. 2006 comes in third for the USA. 2015 comes in second. Learn to read a graph Anthony.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=ann&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12
Caitiecaitie..
If there’s no conspiracy to protect the CAGW claim why is there so much effort to suppress questions that voting populations want to ask–a shutdown on questions even by the taxpayer-funded commission in my country …Australia…a commission that was specifically set up to inform the public.to get them onside for climate action?
How–if not to deceive—could warmist scientists have legitimately claimed decades ago that the science was ‘settled’–that CO2 caused CAGW—when most of the research had not by then been done—when clouds had hardly been researched–their feedback mechanism unknown—ocean research equally in its infancy?
How could warmist scientists legitimately claim decades ago that the GLOBE was warming catastrophically when it only became possible to reliably measure ocean temperature—ie the T of 70% of the GLOBE— in 2005 with ARGO floats?
Why—if not to deceive —have all of the inquiries into the climategate emails been stacked w people w personal vested interests in giving those scientists and institutions a clean bill of health despite glaring impropriety including refusal of FOI and evidence of corruption of peer review–as stated by the UK IOP before their report was mysteriously altered?
Why did an American university find it necessary to freeze Douglas Keenan out of the inquiry into his allegations of fraud in data from China—necessary to promise to call him to testify to hose him down—keep him quiet—but then fail to do so–notifying him that his allegations had been thrown out only after the inquiry had ended.
If warmist scientists are not trying to deceive—if they truly think there’s an urgent existential problem why do they not welcome alternative research and ideas—to maximize the chances of solving it— instead of trying to have questioning scientists charged under the mob laws—or just plain sacked and ostracized—ruined ?
Why are our universities and research institutions closed shops for CAGW true believers–purged of sceptical scientists–often brutally so as with Salby and Spash here in Australia—and of those perceived to b e sceptics when they’re actually not like Bjorn Lomborg who was driven out of Australian universities.?
Why so very very fragile if warmists have nothing to hide?
Why is it compulsory—in Australia anyway—for a Minister and a Prime Minister to say they believe implicitly in CAGW because to do otherwise is to face political and professional ruin—as happened to our great realist Prime Minister Tony Abbott 4 months ago in a brutal MSM-engineered coup—at the behest many of us believe —of the international LW CAGW cabal which includes clueless Presidents, UN officials, bureaucrats, uber-rich Socialist Funds and Foundations and various supremely powerful environment organisations–and the LW MSM that enables the whole shebang.
Many of us here and internationally forecast the political demise of Tony Abbott and Canada’s Harper at the hand of the CAGW CONSPIRACY–and it happened exactly as feared.