Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

Who told you that?

My Momma.

Been to Boston lately?

What? Is it flooding again?

Later. RIght now it's under 8 feet of snow with more to come.

Fukkin global warming...

[piscator]

How do you know?

[Seth]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA
2:16 PM 02/20/2015

Michael Bastasch


Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.

@caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise

— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015



Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.

@grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming.

— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015



@caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations

— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015



Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.

“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.

Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.

But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”

“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.

UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.

“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

[piscator]

News Flash: Oklahoma Republicans rush in where them's with booklearnin' fear to tread. Film @ 11.

[Animavore]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

[Seth]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

And if they are, and they don't, then what?

[Seth]

NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’

AP Photo/Romas Dabrukas

by James Delingpole21 Feb 20150

Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.

Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).

You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.

So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.

The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.

This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.

As Paul Driessen explains:

Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.

Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.

Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.

Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.

I spoke to Soon last night. He told me that of course he receives private funding for his research: he has to because it’s his only way of making ends meet, especially since the Alarmist establishment launched its vendetta against him when, from 2009 onwards, he became more outspoken in his critiques of global warming theory.

Harvard-Smithsonian strove to make his life harder and harder, first by banning him from working on anything even remotely connected with issues like climate change or CO2, then by moving his office away from the astrophysics department to a remote area Soon calls Siberia. What the faculty couldn’t quite do was actually sack Soon because it had no cause: he was producing too many quality papers, and he was also bringing in too much money (40 per cent of which goes straight into the faculty coffers).

So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.

What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.

[JimC]

Seth and mistermack make particularly strange bed fellows in the case of global warming denial...

Who wears the pants, I wonder?

[piscator]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

And if they are, and they don't, then what?

They need to check their math, because they did something wrong. Don't worry though, it'll show up in their Standard Residuals column and someone will talk them through it.

[Seth]

Seth and mistermack make particularly strange bed fellows in the case of global warming denial...

Who wears the pants, I wonder?

We both do. It's the rest of you cunts who haven't got any balls.

[Seth]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

And if they are, and they don't, then what?

They need to check their math, because they did something wrong. Don't worry though, it'll show up in their Standard Residuals column and someone will talk them through it.

Sounds like you have a fervent religious belief that "climate scientists" cannot be either incorrect or corrupt.

[JimC]

Seth and mistermack make particularly strange bed fellows in the case of global warming denial...

Who wears the pants, I wonder?

We both do. It's the rest of you cunts who haven't got any balls.

As long as you don't start talking about guns, economic matters or US imperialism you'll be OK...

[mistermack]

It's too warm to wear pants in bed these days. I sleep on the lawn all winter. It's the only way to keep cool. You can't go near the beaches in the UK any more, there are great whites and saltwater crocodiles and box jellies cruising just yards offshore.

Still, my bananas and coconuts are nearly ripe, so there is some compensation.

[JimC]

It's too warm to wear pants in bed these days. I sleep on the lawn all winter. It's the only way to keep cool. You can't go near the beaches in the UK any more, there are great whites and saltwater crocodiles and box jellies cruising just yards offshore.

Still, my bananas and coconuts are nearly ripe, so there is some compensation.

[piscator]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

And if they are, and they don't, then what?

They need to check their math, because they did something wrong. Don't worry though, it'll show up in their Standard Residuals column and someone will talk them through it.

Sounds like you have a fervent religious belief that "climate scientists" cannot be either incorrect or corrupt.

Just keep your faith in Oklahoma Republicans, I'll stick with the math.