OLE Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway, puts out a regular monthly newsletter with the latest global climate statistics.
The latest update to January 2012 is here
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_January_2012.pdf
This newsletter includes comment that following adjustments to temperature data held by the National Climate Data Centre (NCDC) early last year, and their subsequent incorporation by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…
The overall effect of the change introduced in the GISS record is towards lower temperatures in the early part of the record and higher in the latter part. The net result is therefore an enhancement of the overall global temperature rise since 1880. Various graphs are provided to illustrate the effect.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The graph on estimated sea level change out to 2100 is wrongly labelled..is it not?
When cooling is the new warming, all that heat is obviously hiding at the bottom of the ocean.
So it’s good science to make this assumption and adjust for it.
Let’s see now…..
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ScreenHunter_113-Feb.-08-19.04.jpg
Oops!
“The overall effect of the change introduced in the GISS record is towards lover temperatures”
Is that a polite way of saying FUD?
But it is good to see them using a more realistic average.
On Thursday 22nd of March 2012 , a Carbon Tax protest will be held in Canberra.Up tp 200 protestors will be buying their own penguin suits and making their point.Last time buses were arranged at $50 return trip from Sydney.If you are interested in going or want a penguin suit, contact cata@hotmail.com or catanews@bigpond.com.
It should be a funny but necessary time for us to express what few rights we have left.If you don’t make a stand now, don’t cry when they take everything you own, including your self respect.
When you read historic docs like this and then compare them with NASA giss adjustments, you have to ask: is this science or advocacy?
http://www.real-science.com/temperatures-norway-rose-5c-1885-1940
http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-hansens-arctic-data
spangled drongo,
It is not even advocacy. It is lying.
Hansen lying, again? Fancy that; if I could be bothered I’d drop that over at ‘The Conversation’ [conversation in the sense that onanism is sex] but why bother; I’d only be called a liar.
blah blah blah bolsh smear blah blah
Now what would you clowns know about such matters eh?
Luke,
There is no justification for the steady steady re-adjustments down of temperatures.
They are steadily fabricating evidence to support their predictions because there is no evidence in the real world to support it.
This temperature game, like climategate and like the phony Heartland memo- the AGW community depends on fabricating evidence, hiding counter evidence and lying about their critics.
And here you are, a rent seeking tax payer funded bunch of parasites defending it.
They make stuff up. Like the Flintstones. Like Woody Woodpecker. We look for cunning shifts and subtleties, but, really, they just make stuff up. Like Merry Melodies.
That’s all, folks!
“Now what would you clowns know about such matters eh?”
And what would you as the resident village idiot know about it either.
You havnt even got the brains to read to material you cite .. and repeatedly so.
Cohers, just had a squiz over at the Con, on the IPA, and this guy Alex Cannara, [10th video down] seems to have made every second comment there. Does he get paid by the word or what.
Is he a US version of Graham Ward?
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC3.html
Well they actually don’t make stuff up – that’s your problem.
And pity about 6 other analyses come to the same conclusion. And what – you unrepresentative, unpublished swill think otherwise?
Pity for Wattsy that his beloved re-analysis came a cropper too eh?
Little Lukey waxes positively poetic:
“And pity about 6 other analyses come to the same conclusion. And what – you unrepresentative, unpublished swill think otherwise?”
Too bad all those analyses depend on the same data set adjusted by the same LIARS!!! Poor Little Lukey. Gullible as all leftards wanting their agenda to make it soooo badly.
I forgot to add: they make up the supporting analyses too. I’d better be careful though. Someone is switching from teenie-talk to Keating-talk.
Spangles; Cannara is one of the peanut gallery who bunch around the PhD’s, poking their heads out periodically to stick their tongues out or fart in the general direction of such luminaries as John Nicol. Poor John, I don’t know how he stands it, getting patronised by the likes of Chris O’Neil. I might go over and distract Micky ‘blue eyes’ Brown, the Sheldon Cooper of the climate debate.
“Too bad all those analyses depend on the same data set adjusted by the same LIARS” WRONG – you UTTER goon !
The theory that sea level rise has stalled because of La Nina, is not true then?
Luke, does it concern you at all that the raw data will no longer be available?
Is it OK for someone to continue adjusting historic temps?
Does that strike you as being scientific?
When Luke blusters and makes dismissive, rude arguments he is giving it his bestest shot.
There is no justification to consistently massage the numbers other than to enhance the consensus idea of dangerous, unique and dramatic temperature increase. It is classic bias confirmation to offer nice squiggles to keep political and media types entertained.
The data distorters did not find new troves of data. They did not find that historical records were biased to read too high.
They just need to justify the conclusion they arrived at decades ago and keep up the nice flow of tax payer money.
Well sorry there it is necessary to adjust the analysis of any probe. Are you some sort of delusional twit that thinks raw data is somehow sacrosanct.
Surely you’ve learnt how your mates Spencer & co came a gutser not cleaning their satellite data for orbital drift. You’re a denialist’s parrot, hunter – bereft of a singular neuron of independent thought.
Huntsbum – use another analysis – look at SSTs, satellites, species behaviour – golly isn’t just so strange that the trend story is all the same. Which is why you’re an uber denier matey.
I have been following the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis site for many years. They had a section which should actual w/s data (after combining stations at the same location) and then a homogenised section.
Now there are 3 sections:
* after GISS homogeneity adjustment;
* GHCNv3 (adj) + SCAR data;
* after moving suspicious records.
The records are now so tampered with they do not bear any resemblance to reality. De Bilt, in Holland, now shows massive temp increase when the old unadjusted record shows temps higher in the 1940s. These GISS records should be exposed as the nonsense that they are.
Here is the original
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Here is the new sanitised version.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600000&data_set=14&num_neighbors=1
Ho. Ho. Ho, not only have the clueless idiots made fools of themselves with FAKEGATE but now even the AGE is laughing at them.
More strength to your arm Bob Carter, but then again he’s up against the ultimate flyweight in GAIA brain Timmy.
Juliar must be pleased, her super wealthy numbskull champion whipped by brilliant but lowly paid Bob.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/bob-carter-wins-the-cartoon-war-a-very-sweet-win/#comments
Seems like Bob Tisdale agrees with Phil Jones, the Climate models just don’t work. Just a pity about all those billions $ flushed away for a zero return.
Of course in Australia’a case there are countless billions more to be wasted down the sluce gates while China, India etc gear up and take away our jobs and industries while we pig ignorantly try and cut back on that whopping 1.3% of the planet’s emissions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/if-the-ipcc-was-selling-manmade-global-warming-as-a-product-would-the-ftc-stop-their-deceptive-ads/
But don’t worry Luke, Gav and Poly etc thinks its a great idea and we’ll change the temp and climate all by ourselves. I mean let’s face it these donkeys will be voting for the Juliar +Green coalition come the next election.
Brilliant minds these super brains. SARC, SARC.
Climate models don’t work because they can’t work. They can’t work because of the superficiality of knowledge, the flimsiness of the method, and the fantastic complexity of the subject. Alarmingly, there are aphids sucking on my Tahitian lime tree that will understand that more readily than some humans.
But ask yourselves this. If CAGW were real, who would be the very last people you would consult about solutions? Who would be the absolute last people you would want to empower in any way in the event of such a catastrophe? Whose theories and remedies would be guaranteed to worsen the problem?
Exactly!
Well now, seeing that the other famous ‘unrepresentative swill’ are now -via the Greens- running the country, our turn may come too.
So stick to your guns, count the ‘Flanneries’ of rain and be patient ,all you fellow ‘Swillers’
Look Neville – only deniers and disinformationists quote Wattsy. And Nova is going bananas – must be hurting bad…. vis a vis Deltoid who can’t even be bothered running it.
The more you lot whinge – the more we know it’s true and is hurting soooo bad. Keep whinging so we know it’s true.
Look at Robert “Climate models don’t work because they can’t work.” what a pretentiousness … As if you’d know mate. What drongoism …
You’ll also notice ClimateAudit not running Fake(but is it true)Gate. And you guys never quote ClimateFraudit anymore – I know why – it’s too intellectual for you – more science and less rant.
Luke,
OHC- not as predicted. SLR- not as predicted. Himalayan glaciers, not as predicted. Tropospheric hotspot, not as predicted. Storm event trends, flat. Droughts, flat. Temps the past 15 years? Not much.
You can prop it up. You can give it a zombie virus and it can reanimate. Youcan continue to sit in your offices hoping to retire out before people see AGW for the fucking waste of time it is.
But it’s over.
Face it guys
As as the representative of and spokes person for, the alarmanistas, its no accident that he is and has been, the most vexatious, obnoxious and irrational of the activists on this blog.
I reckon he is employed by some public service unit somewhere where he can mix his day job, that tax payers fund him for, with his activist campaining.
Nothing unusual about that, thats what many of the academics involved in this scam do…after all the shonkademics also line up to be advisers to the various NGOs and lobbying groups like the climate institutes,WWF etc
Dear God …..bring on the Election, and bring on that Inquiry before these cretinous clowns completly screw whats left what was the best country in the world.
Robert,
EXACTLY!
So apparently do the birds, ants, frogs, trees. Water plants, spiders, snakes etc etc etc. . .
Interestingly, the old timers around here have been far more accurate than the modelling because they take notice of the signals in the environment not the signals created in the models.
Why, Luke, when you came on channeling Keating yesterday – inspired by his Queensland invective? – I thought we’d all be stale Vegemite sandwiches in globite schoolcases etc.
Don’t tell it’s back to drongoism and pigs botty! What unpretentious disappointmentism!
Robert
Luke is the equivalent of Lord Haw Haw. Mocking the good side. Will the same fate befall him?
You know, Len, I really hope there are no recriminations and that we simply move on to building the infrastructure that will help us to shake off the Green minginess and snobbish puritanism currently infecting our lives. And I hope Conservation finds a major role in this revolution where we always accept a measure of entropy but always take the long view in our interraction with nature.
We have to be careful of becoming reverse-alarmists, more interested in saying gotcha than making good things happen. Let’s also be wary of coolist counter-claiming, predicting new Daltons and so on. If the current fifties style climate continues or it doesn’t, it’s obvious nobody knows too much yet. There was a definite shift to ocean-influenced weather in 2007 where I live; but, as to the future, how much does anyone really know?
And speaking of temperature adjustments, interesting talk by Richard Muller of BEST:
SD – I can’t imagine in my most horrific dreams how that rave can be taken seriously.
I got 4mins into it and closed it down!!
hunter
there were many reasons I doubted the CC crowd but the strongest came down to the adjustments they made to the temperature records.
It never made good sense to me other than to suit their theories.
John, I was giving him some credit until I checked his recent data. It is unbelievable. It will be interesting to see what peer-review does to it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/mean:12/plot/best/from:1970/trend
Jonathan Wilkes,
That, and the behavior of believers like Luke helped seal it for me. People who have the truth do not need to rewrite history or act like the Like team does. AGW promoters rewrite history, fabricate memos, hide data, suppress critics, and act, from Hansen to Luke, more like pathological twits than people who know something significant.
The decision to adjust a temperature trend is essentially binary. Shall it trend down, or shall it trend up?
The odds of a new trend adjustment going up or down is 50-50. Yet, the series of adjustments always yield a new up-trend greater than the one before. Over and over again. This is like flipping a coin and getting a very long sequence of tails. In fact, the more the trends are adjusted, the greater the odds that the next trend will be upward. At some point, one concludes that the coin is rigged.
Well it’s an intellectual old blog isn’t it? “The odds of a new trend adjustment going up or down is 50-50.” not really ” In fact, the more the trends are adjusted, the greater the odds that the next trend will be upward. ” Golly gee Schiller discovers a new mathematics. You read it here first folks. Tea party maths.
Debs – preferring old codgers demented memories of years gone by – but how about some real data Debs – – oh dear more warming
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ddc/observed/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf species
But the climate tool of the month goes to hunter for his unrelenting parroting of what the disinformation campaign has told him to think, replete with presentation notes. Heaven help us if he ever undertakes “original thought” and stops slumming it.
But what was his little list –
OHC – hmmmm – not as it seems I’m afraid – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
Flat droughts – perhaps not – http://ww.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_JGR2011.pdf
Storm event trends – well there was no prediction doofus. But if you mean tropical cyclones/hurricanes – the prediction is for less.
And flat-lining temps in 15 years – hmmmmm – wrong again http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/trend
Isn’t it strange that 3 land analyses, independent re-analyses, 2 ocean analyses, 2 satellite data sets and species behaviour all show warming but the denialist goons are still banging away. If after Watts came a gutser on his big UHI hypothesis.
And the ye olde tropo hotspot
– pity some recent work upsetting that apple cart as well
On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep‐layer troposphere warms
faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. So plenty to do but not quite as huntsbum would suggest.
But what hunter should be worried about is an expansion in the tropical belt and widening of the Hadley circulation. Why might be a bit intellectual for knuckle draggers.
Tropopause-based analysis of the width of the tropical belt indicates a 5–8 latitude
expansion during 1979–2005. http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/2007JD008861.pdf
Poleward expansion of Hadley circulation http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/5229/2007/acp-7-5229-2007.pdf
But heaven our denialist brethren if they stop tooling around denier sites, stop being told what to think, stop reciting their hymn sheets, and do some independent research.
If this isn’t enough proof for us of the barking madness of this green cult then we should all join the illogical and unreasoning Luke and partners and vote for the Labor /Green loonies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_wed_followed_bob_browns_solar_dream_wed_be_broke/
Also Luke you can argue all day or years about temps up or down but the FACTS are we can do zero about it. No new maths or silly delusion can fix that problem for you.
You can convince every climate scientist on the planet you’re correct and it still doesn’t alter the case. We in OZ can’t mitigate AGW no matter how hard we try. Simple KINDY maths.
Luke,
I am a results orientated person.
I take advice from people who have fruit on the tree.
When I want to ask advice about how to be rude to people and how to post copious links on blogs you will be high on my list.
At the moment we’re discussing our ability to predict climate patterns/behaviour successfully. People’s age has little to do with it, however, statistically, the older people are likely to have more experience and also wisdom.
That does not mean all of them.
I have found that those who have spent their whole lives living and working in the environment are more often correct about predicting climate behaviour as they have learned to read signals in their environment. While they may not have a degree, it is still a science of sorts.
The IPCC models, the political PR campaign etc are suffering badly from poor results.
They are rapidly losing credibility.
That does not necessarily mean they are totally wrong and some other hypothesis is totally correct.
It does mean however, that we are foolish to allow a political agenda to be attached to them.
It is also foolish to dismiss generational wisdom just because it can’t be fed into computer programs or because it doesn’t have a row of letters like PhD behind its name.
Both have their place and both have earned their place.
It is also just as foolish to dismiss the role of science.
The ultimate foolishness is the inability to admit mistakes and then to try and re invent the past rather than learn from the mistakes.
Sound familiar?
“Tropopause-based analysis of the width of the tropical belt indicates a 5–8 latitude
expansion during 1979–2005.”
Since I believe in global warming in all its kinds and cycles, I’m quite interested in that time-frame and raagged-edge percentage for an expansion of the tropical belt. Allowing for the usual distortions, uncertainties etc, it’s genuinely interesting and makes sense. What such stuff has to do with AGW is beyond me, and what global warming has to do with AGW is beyond me.
I think the references to knuckle-draggers, demented old codgers etc are a bit of a key to it all. It’s the craving for come kind of exclusivity and superiority that robs these people of a capacity for straight thought. The fear of growing old and a need to be one of the Cool Kidz come into it also. But I should leave GetUp out of this.
Debs – most people have no idea of their climate – and have decade bias in their judgement. Depends on the climate of your formative years.
“are more often correct about predicting climate behaviour as they have learned to read signals in their environment” which is why they go broke in big droughts without support – yea sure
The trouble with links Debs is that you have to read them. Something you’re not fond of. You’d rather sing from the hymn sheet provided to you. As for rudeness – check your mates behaviour first.
Luke responds to one point- the troposphere failing to act as predicted- by distraction.
And to the rest, he can only, in effect call skeptics what we in the states call the “n-word”. In the old south, a bigot, when running out of argument (and they usually run out of argument very quickly), would simply repeat, with spittle flecked rage, “ni**er!” at the top of his lungs.
Just like Luke does with “denier”.
Luke has no argument. Just denigration and, ironically, denial that his faith could be mistaken.
As to Luke’s faux argument of people not knowing what climate is, what sad, breath taking unintended irony on his part.
It is the AGW believers who point to every weather event and claim climate change/doom/catastrophe/warming.
Luke: the bestest source of skeptics on this blog.
Please keep up the good work, you guys.
read what you said in the mirror to yourself.
You have been refuted on your points. Bad luck.
Not a single science point hunter. Not one.
“It is the AGW believers who point to every weather event and claim climate change/doom/catastrophe/warming.” just verballing on your hymn sheet talking points ….
A dismal performance
In fact – how well do the models do
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Luke
read them and weep, he said??
I’ve read some and laughed! Sorry not enough time to waste on crap!
Maaate you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Because the real deniers are as thick as bricks let’s just look at a couple of paragraphs from the Lomborg article Bolt refers to.
“Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3 per cent of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”)….
Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming… When the effects are calculated in a standard climate model, the result is a reduction in average temperature of one twenty-thousandth of a degree celsius. By the end of the century, Germany’s $US130bn solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.”
Just what is it that the dill Luke and company don’t understand about 0.3% of Germany’s energy derived from those useless solar panels and postponing temp increases by just 23 hours by 2100?
Of course this disgraceful lunacy comes after spending $130 billion on this solar energy rubbish that they now suddenly realise they can’t afford anymore.
And the stupifying dividend returned to the German people is only 0.3% of the power supplied to the grid.
A child of five could have worked this out in five minutes using very simple maths. Next we have Australia stepping up to the plate with our co2 tax and the 10 billion $ green enrergy fund.
Every cent of those billions will indeed be wasted unless we vote out this clueless Labor green coalition govt whenever we get the chance.
Luke,
I almost agree with you. The decadal influence operating at present in my world is the recent drought.
The political agenda are unable to let it go.
Unfortunately you are suffering from the same disease. Amazingly you are still sprouting the false assumption that Agriculture is a burden on the rest of society. That is totally incorrect if you can get past your narrow decadal view.
Agriculture was supported for a few years during the drought. It is not and never has been a burden in the manner you infer. Agriculture returns as a positive and did so even during the drought. Individual areas did need support and they are right now proving it was an excellent investment. Compare the budgets and you will maybe surprise yourself when you discover where the bulk of taxpayer money is spent. Also take time to spot the sectors which produce continual positive results via production. If Agriculture is in positive ( and it is) then it cannot be a burden. No rocket science necessary.
Watch your own decadal influence Luke and try and learn from those who have more experience and therefore a bigger picture.
Johnathon – devastating response maaate. Incisive. Highly analytical.
Debbie – on the contrary I love agriculture. But billions in drought aid ongoing over 20 years is enough to make any Treasury nervous. And when you’ve had your 1 in 100 assistance 3 times in a decade – well “that question” on AGW influence will be asked.
Luke
I thought I come down to your level so that you don’t feel overwhelmed.
Cheers maaate!
Luke,
you need to look at the other side of the ledger and then do the maths.
….“that question” on AGW influence will be asked.’
And the answer is, variability rules, there will be no more serious drought in Oz for at least 20 years.
After that, we can assume droughts will begin again.
Not a wise choice El Gordo – http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/australiasvariablerainfall_jan-dec.pdf
have a gecko at 1957,1958, 1959
and for the 70s – say 1972, 1976, 1977
The next El Nino is always out there in the chaos
Debbie and afew others have had a look at the evidence and concluded that global warming trends as shown by models are not supported by the data. I had a look through all those graphs done by Prof Humlum. I reckon they show the globe is still on a warming trend and weather is not climate. I did find half a dozen or so where you could reasonably conclude just by looking at the graph that the data were not supportive. But my view on the others is generally that over the period graphed the recent trend is not out of character with the longer period trend if you took into account that most of the decadal and shorter cycles are related to periods of ENSO, La Niña or El Niño activity. (The oldtimers did not know that but they would have realised it made sense of their rainfall history and the chart behind the door). So where the graphs turn down a bit in recent years, it is simply the short term average drifting about a bit around an upward trend. Can you find any other than for Antarctica where that is not a reasonable explanation.? ( I am assuming you wont blame it all on what some would be quick to call the Reykjavik conspiracy as your views were the same before that came out).
In eyeballing the long term trend over the period of the graph, you will need to take into account the big La Niña cooling episodes in the 50s , 70s and recent. I recall the 2010 La Niña was the hottest La Niña on record.
All I am saying is, as the Prof himself put it: “Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, clouds, volcanic, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years”. But he must think three years is long enough as he then courageously uses the last three years sea level rise to forecast the rise to 2100. Only a coastal real estate agent would buy that. Maybe he is trying to make economic forecasters look good.
or a better analysis http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/australiasvariablerainfall.pdf
Spatial data – lost on Neville of course ….
Flukey Lukey I bought several copies of those rainfall charts many years ago ( about 1997) from Long Paddock and handed them to relatives and some friends.
You dream it up and I’ll know something about it, like the book about Australian Rangelands I quoted from a fair while ago.
Once again you’re talking BS and certainly don’t know what you’re talking about.
For my stamping grounds, the wetter period post war was interrupted by a severe drought and some extraordinary heat around 1960. The droughty period after the seventies (and the Global Cooling tripe) was interrupted by a big wet in the late eighties. All of this proves…absolutely nothing.
My prediction – and, please, no Nobels:
The southerlies and nor-easters that have brought wetter, cooler weather to Eastern Oz since ’07 will one day give way to more frequent westerlies and we will again have withering frosts under clear skies and terrifying spring fire seasons. God help us, we will again endure the rare but awful peak-summer westerlies, as in the early 1790s and around 2000. That’s the least fun you can have in the bush, let me tell you. It may be an interruption to a phase or it may be a new phase – it can’t be anything else, so, like I said, no Nobels.
Give me this back-to-the-fifties weather anytime. (Not that the fifties and seventies were evenly wet, that only happens in pixie-land.) I got covered in leeches today, but I’m not complaining when I think of summers pre-’07.
It is not very sensible to speak of an Australian average, since Australia is so big that one may as well take Eastern Australia, PNG and East Asia, call the area Fred, and talk of a Fred average. Nonetheless, and for what it’s worth, “Australian rainfall” has increased over the last century.
But that’s a factoid, and I really hate factoids. I put it in for those who do like the silly bloody things.
Luke,
My dear bigot, you offer condescending gibbersih dressed up as science. Yet it turns your sources lie, deceive, and confabulate great trends from data that is seldom if ever outside the margin of error, and then typically only after it is ‘adjusted’.
Some young writer at the LSE is asking if policy regarding significant aspects of climate based on evidence, or is the evidence gathering driven by the pre-determined policy.
Your behavior fits the bill of the latter to a “t”. Add to that your deep seated need to deal with skeptics no different than a racist would deal with their chosen dehumanized group, and it is pretty clear not only do you have nothing of significance to add to a reasonable discussion, but you never have.
John LeCarre calls your sort “neverwuzzers”. Not even “wannabes”.
Poor hunter. Science not your best subject eh? Who’s a little bit out of their depth and feeling all woozy. That’s the cognitive dissonance kicking in.
Luke,
How sad for you.
All of that arrogance you have wasted on being not only wrong, but an ass.
Every day that goes by, and every post I read from you and the other believers, and every paper published showing the climate crisis is and always was rubbish makes me more comfortable as a skeptic. And everday that does by finds more people coming to the same conclusion as me. Please keep posting. You are the best advertisement for skepticism on this blog.
Alas Hunter we’ve all fallen for the trap of arguing with the Luke desk donkeys. These numbskulls really think that we can mitigate AGW by wasting endless billions $ while the non OECD countries send their emissions of co2 soaring through the roof.
We flatline and they soar yet somehow we’ll return climate to some dreamed of nirvana. In their clueless minds this probably means the LIA.
Meanwhile a concerned teacher gives us an idea of the appalling rubbish they are teaching kids in school.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_global_warming_is_preached_in_year_8/
Here’s a 10 point quiz you can take. I of course got 10 out of 10, YUK, YUK.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/getting_warmer_warmer/
Well Bolt’s full of crap isn’t he?
By question 3 he’s into sophistry.
Question 5 we’re doing the older US = the world ruse
Question 8 is wrong
Question 9 is a joke
Question 10 is laughable – what stats fraud
Only morons like Neville would think this test was useful and believe in the statistical evil of Q10. Or perhaps those with an agenda to deceive. Like deniers?
Strangely I got 10 out of 10 too ….
Be great to get these creeps in front a Royal Commission – with some “shaddup and answer the question” type interrogation.
“Be great to get these creeps in front of a Royal Commission – ”
Thats the only sensible thing you have said for over the 6 years being the vexatious bloggernutter and serial abuser on this blog.
The “creeps” would of course have to include all your mates, viz, sundry academic nit wits, and lieing NGOs stooges that are behind all of this.
International experts and ‘creeps’ of note would also have to be called like railway Engineer Pachauri..assuming he can tear himself away from writing cheap porn and yet more money grubbing and deception plotting on the IPCC….followed of course by that most eminent of all scientists and “creeps”, the Nobel Prize winning. ..Al Gore (snort snort)
But course it not going to happen in this country, the Labor Party couldnt do anything ethically right, nor professionally competent.
Aoart from that, Flam Flam and his CC Commissioners will be their chief advisers…. so it would be a complete snow job, and another race to the bottom, and yet another waste of money.
Bring on that election ..please…. so these clowns can be purged
Ahhh Little Lukey,
When gubmint regulates agriculture into losing money and then has to SUBSIDIZE them to keep them from failing YOU blame agriculture. Maybe it is gubmint interference in everything that is more at fault than individuals and groups that are then forced to try and influence gubmint to save themselves??
Of course, also throw in those who purposely want to expand gubmint so that they can exercize the control it has and those who think they can run everyone’s lives for them!!
kuhnkat – spoken like a myopic yank
au contraire – Min Truthy – you would only call those with expertise – not advocates, celebs, activists – so I guess most of the sceptics wouldn’t be needed given the expertise requirement – unless you have a separate science fiction theme (wouldn’t need Al, Rajendra and Tim either). For you a worry – coz it would be a whole bunch of people that actually know something.
No Bazza,
I have never said global warming is not supported by the data.
What I have clearly said is AGW is not supported by the data.
No one is arguing that climate does not change. Also your pedantic nit picking about weather versus climate is a complete nonsense and only applies inside the computer models and their formulas. They use ranges and the emerging data shows that AGW projective modelling has now dropped outside the lowest end of the range. That does not mean therefore that I have concluded the climate is not changing. I have instead concluded that the projective modelling is DEFICIENT. Are you able to understand the difference?
My position remains that the data does NOT support the hypothesis that HUMAN PRODUCED C02 is a key driver of global warming. It may/may not be an influence but so far it is NOT conclusively supported by the data or the projective modelling.
Further to that, applying inexact ecological/climate science as a base to alter human behaviour and using an attrocious PR campaign to do it will have no result in relation to altering climate or even managing it.
Here is another take on the same issue.
We have ‘modellers’ who simply refuse to accept that their work is just not supported by the new evidence.
They are far too enamoured with their computer models, to the point where they argue that what is happening in the real world is not relevant.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/murray-darling-crisis/murray-darling-basin-plan-must-include-floods/story-e6frg6px-1226271201722
http://nswic.org.au/pdf/press_release/2012/120214.pdf
Honestly Bazza (and Luke)…if you are backing the claims that we are using the ‘best available science’ then it MUST be updated. If the UPDATING changes the parameters and the hypothesis then it is NOT the fault of the climate, it is actually the fault of those ‘best guess’ parameters, the starting assumptions and the hypothesis!!!!
Well that exposes the alarmanistic scam does it not.
Flim Flim, Pachauri and Gore are exactly the same people, the alarmists and con artistes have in the past have tried to foist on the public as being THE experts?
Are you seriously trying to say that the Chairman of the IPCC and leader of the push, one Raja Pachauri railway engineer extraordinaire and grafted on climate scientist of great respect in the Peer Reviewed literature, that you wank on about so much, that mere mortals should listen in awe…after all he is THE Chairman and Nobel Prize winner …
…well .thats the fraudulent imagery that has been portrayed in the media and with that pedigree he would have to be a star witness
..and Al Gore, well he was a Vice President of the USA and therefore he just knows everything, including how to make money out of it..as you would expect I mean if Hansen can why cant I
…as for Flannery, well he is a Professor and he as written a book on the subject and his predictions have all been true
So who are these people who actually know something ??
Do tell…who are the people in your “B” team and what is it that they know.
I am quivering with worry and anticipation over the release of these names.
…..snort
Luke’s right, let’s not invite Gore. We really don’t need things to get any colder or wetter right now.
And since computer models are so consistent – ie wrong all the time – we should dispense with the services of anyone who has been involved in the confection of such risible slop.
Yes Luke,
The back room boys and girls do actually know something. They also do not pretend that they have all the answers.
Unlike the AGW celebs and the high flying bureaucrats/pollies, they are not a worry.
Why are they not speaking up in places where they could actually make a difference?
That is the real worry.
Instead of all that blather Luke, take the test:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html
“Climate, like many natural systems, is intrinsically uncertain, with real limits to the potential for attribution and prediction”:
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1153/
Also, we don’t understand gravity but we didn’t cause it and it probably isn’t warming the planet either.
Peter Gleick isn’t admitting any forgery but was behind the distribution of Fakegate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
More here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
Hasn’t done himself any favours.
When I have I advocated Gore, Flannery or Pachauri – these guys are administrators or AGW celebs. Distracts you lot and gives you some to rant about while some real science gets done.
In fact Robert if YOU don’t know who the real scientists are – well that about sums it up eh?
As usual Debs you missed Bazza’s dry wit. However he is correct.
As evasive as ever.
Nice to see that you recognise the Chairman of the IPCC as an administrator. Hmm I wonder what he and Gore et al were awarded Nobel Prizes for then …the best cupcakes ?
And the Chair of Dullards Climate Commission, dear old Dr Flim Flim, plus all his sundry commissioners like Steffen etc they are just AGW celebs ..well yes, WE know that, but thats NOT the message portrayed by the ABC lefty journos.
It hasnt distracted me one bit …most moderately intelligent people saw through it a long time ago …its just dopes like you who are part of the scam, got sucked in and thought they could get away with it.
So come on who are these people doing some proper work…and tell us have they published in a proper PR Journal or is it just more of the Ye Olde Mates Club approach …you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
Debbie , when did you reach the position “My position remains that the data does NOT support the hypothesis that HUMAN PRODUCED C02 is a key driver of global warming” and what data was involved ?. ( No need for caps Deb).
Gleick’s partial confessoin is just that: He is still fibbing. When he lied about Donna Laframboise’s book he did the same thing. Sort of like what the ‘team’ did in climategate, and like what believers everywhere do regularly: tell half truths and complete lies to keep da faith alive and da money flowing.
A couple of Luke’s criticisms have hit home. I don’t know who the real scientists are. I remember the “hot” young things in the Hungry Beast rap video. Luke seemed very impressed by them. They had laboratory coats to protect themselves from coffee spills and kept telling us that THEY were climate scientists. Maybe those guys? Really, I just wouldn’t know.
And you can include me among the obtuse skeptics who completely missed Bazza’s dry wit.
I do hope Luke and Bazza will persist in trying to educate elderly dullards like me. Maybe some more links to Skeptical Science? That site’s a rollercoaster of record highs, record lows and shocking anomalies. Should wake me up a bit.
Robert is starting to get it !
Have a look at who’s doing SEACI research. What BoM staff have done research on ENSO, IPO and cyclones. Who’s who in CSIRO’s senior climate scientists. Have a look at IPCC WG1 chapter lead authors.
One of the guys in the rap video was a senior scientist. But hey that was a bit of fun that’s all.
These are the guys doing the work – not the glitterati.
So Robert with all the pontificating on here – people don’t even know who they are talking about – what they really know or what papers they have published.
Seems a bit low grade don’t you think? Hence my demeanor.
Robert look at hunter – he’s simply parroting his lines from a pre-prepared position. Has this guy really examined the issue. Of course not.
As for Truthy suggesting publishing is easy and an old mates club – obviously more uninformed chatter.
and Skeptical Science doesn’t always get it right. A few posts are quite average.
Hunter, have a butchers at Luke. Studiously ignoring the collapse of Fakergate which he was wallowing in a couple of days ago and enjoying as though it was the Catastros Climategate.
It’s delicious, it’s delightful, it’s delukey!
Good news to see that Gleick has been exposed and confesses to nearly everything. What a lying gutless low life, but he’s still telling lies.
He states in his confession that Heartland etc tried to prevent debate on AGW but the truth ONCE AGAIN is the exact opposite.
When Scott Denning debated Roy Spencer at their last conference they all said what a pity it was that nobody else turned up to debate other sceptic scientists. Afterall invitations were sent out but the stupid cowards wouldn’t front and take up the challenge.
Once again it just proves which side has something to hide and everything to lose. What an army of fraudsters and con merchants these hysterics have proven to be and cost taxpayers around the world 100’s of billions $ to try and fix a problem that may not be a problem at all.
But we do know that mitigation is a riduculous path to persue because it plainly will not work and can never work while non OECD countries are developing at such incredible rates of growth.
Bazza,
Because you were claiming to quote me, I was just correcting your comment here:
Debbie and afew others have had a look at the evidence and concluded that global warming trends as shown by models are not supported by the data.
Instead of attempting to ask ask questions to extricate yourself, you might like to consider that you were deliberately misrepresenting me.
I used the caps to make sure you didn’t miss the point again 🙂
And Luke,
Have you done your sums yet?
Neville
I’m not exactly a fan of A Bolt but I agree with him on this question ” if AGW and all associated claims are fair dinkum, why the need for lies and deceptions?”
Why all the “adjustments”? If those old records are questionable, then all are questionable not just some, so take them as they come and we have a coherent set of record.
There is no way now to judge the veracity of them anyway.
Well Luke,
what do you have to say about Gleick – do you think he has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Luke,
You actually missed the point.
And I have actually studied the issue, but I am not a rent seeking scumbag like you all.
AGW has corrupted a lot of good talent, and allowed for a lot more mediocre government desk jockeys to make a good living selling the latest faux crisis.
My list of failed AGW predictions holds up; your spew and dodging only underscores it.
And even now, when a major player in AGW communication confesses to thieving and defrauding an innocent group because they happen to disagree with him, you just continue blowing hard.
No conscience, just protecting your place in the trough.
“As for Truthy suggesting publishing is easy and an old mates club – obviously more uninformed chatter”
Thats you just displaying your appalling naivete and ignorance.
Come the Commission I reckon there would be number of the so called Climate intelligentsia having a squirm or two.
The old mates club of contributors and authors of papers in the previous IPCC reports is now well documented ..and they Do have a case to answer. No doubt Raja Pachauri will protect the poor dears
So come on, who are the legit ones doing legit and competent work?
Gleick had just been appointed to lead the AGU task force on science ethics and integrity:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work
Peter Gleick
Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA
Randy Townsend
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA
In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”
Yeah, right!
h/t Willis Eschenbach
Comment from: gavin February 18th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
What have I missed? Not much it seems. But some, possibly crazy people have a strange desire to leave their mark everywhere.
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
You were saying?
You couldn’t make this up. As noted above Peter Gleick has just been apponted AGU expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.
Like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, but will Luke give a stuff? What a mob of hoaxers and fraudsters.
I just hope Heartland go in hard and make an example of these crooks, newspapers included.
Well that was a good read….. Apart from all being very accomplished in the written word, it seems the argument is more fun than what is really going on with the changing climate…..Having spent all my adult life in the fishing or mining industries, I have learnt that anything can and will be read into any computer modeling that will get the answer required by the question…I think in most cases the answer or outcome is written to suit the views of the department then a question is arranged to suit the answer..Climate change is a classic example of my views….To me, their is only one answer to whats going on..” We humans have chopped caught stripped dug harvested burnt heated the whole environment to suit our needs with no respect to the rightful balance…If you are naive enough to think that this wont have a massive effect on the climate we are all in big trouble….