Proof That US Warming Is Mann-Made

This post is not a joke, but is stunning.

The graph below shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering. There is almost perfect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much cheating our friends at NCDC are doing with the US temperature record.

ScreenHunter_1618 Aug. 03 09.45

Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

Unbelievable. What on Earth are these guys up to? Perhaps I have it backwards. Maybe data tampering drives CO2?

“Our algorithm is working as designed”

- Recent NCDC press release

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”

- Albert Einstein.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Proof That US Warming Is Mann-Made

  1. tom0mason says:

    Sorry Steven, I’m not surprised by USHCN data tampering, I am appalled that they have the gall to keep doing it when it is so obvious.

    • tom0mason says:

      Can this sort of result be accidental? Is it just a correlation? This couldn’t possibly lead people to think that this correlation was man-made? After all there are very good reasons for each adjustment, well isn’t there?

      Remember correlation doesn’t equal causation, …
      …yes, right! :(

      • Jon says:

        Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf
        Politicized climate science is just the means to promote an undemocratic global government.
        They don’t care if CAGW/UNFCCC is true or not. They only care about dressing CO2 up as being “the belief in the ‘end of history’” etc. it’s a propaganda war against nations and the individual.

        • Jon says:

          What they do is UNFCCC conform. And that means that the data is turning into policy based claims.

      • Phil Jones says:

        What’s a good reason for changing the temperatures? Urbanization?…. That would lower temps after adjustment…

        • Philip Shehan says:

          Yes Phil and that is what the adjustments of GISSdata find, although the effect is small, less than 0.1 C.

          Still, a very clumsy and counterproductive effort if the object is to fudge the data to suit warmist arguments.

          On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, the adjustments are conducted legitimately based on sound scintific principles.

          http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

  2. Shazaam says:

    Come on Toto, when fabricating data, the NOAA fraudsters need to have a target number. Otherwise they risk not adjusting enough to alarm the politicians.

    Matching the slope of CO2 is a simple adjustment to calculate. That way they don’t adjust to much, and it gives them a target for adjusting the past down as well.

    Self-reinforcing adjustments / grant preservation efforts.

    • Morgan says:

      Yeah, except matching the slope to CO2 is not expected by anybody but the severely ignorant. If they had matched the slope to the *natural log* of CO2, they might have fooled the moderately ignorant.

      • Shazaam says:

        And that’s where they screwed-the-pooch (sorry Toto).

        They just aren’t adjusting enough to show that exponential, run-away, Venus-like global warming they were pontificating so breathlessly about when the warming scam was launched.

        Like I said. Matching the slope is easy. From all the prognostications of doom I’ve heard from the climatologists cashing in on the government gravy train, I doubt any of those charlatans / scamsters is actually very sharp. Thus they keep getting caught fudging the numbers. (Maybe Reggie is “helping”)

        • B says:

          They might get to an exponential adjustment, they just can’t do it all at once. Someone might notice.

      • Here’s the real problem with matching the slope of CO2. AGW “theory” suggests that a little bit of warming caused by CO2 will then increase water vapor, causing additional warming, exponentially. By matching the slope of CO2 rise, they are proving their own theory incorrect, even with their adjusted temperatures.

  3. Morgan says:

    If the US meteorologists tell us the weather hasn’t changed, how much does the weather have to not change before the climate doesn’t change?

  4. Anything is possible says:

    “Our algorithm is working as designed”

  5. gregole says:

    Steven,

    That is just stunning! Freaking amazing what these clowns are up to.

  6. Anthony Watts says:

    A stunning coincidence for certain, what it means is anyone’s guess. I can’t imagine any sort of methodology that would define this. The R2 value of .98 is an exceptionally good fit.

  7. Anthony Watts says:

    You should test it with some other surface and satellite datasets.HadCRUT and RSS for example to see if it is a fluke or not.

    • I don’t know if there is any parallel to this with those data sets, because I am comparing adjustments vs. CO2. The USHCN data is the only data set which readily lends itself to this sort of analysis.

      We do know that there is no correlation with RSS temperature vs. CO2 since 1996, because there has been no warming. Same for HadCRUT since 2001.

      What interests me about this is the exponential increase in USHCN adjustments since 1990. According to USHCN1 docs, the adjustments went flat after 1990. Supposedly they use the same TOBS algorithm. Something seriously wrong is happening.

  8. Anthony Watts says:

    Of course some will say this proves the relationship between CO2 and temperature perfectly, but the Y component isn’t actual temperature, its the diff between raw and final.

    • Dmh says:

      Do you believe CO2 data is reliable?

    • Morgan says:

      Exactly, and since they could not use the *natural log* of the diff between raw and final, they just use the data, which is how they, as Shazaam said, screwed the pooch.

      Sometimes it’s not the lie that proves the liar, it’s way they lie.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      That’s a little too much coinkydink for me. The amount of adjustment just so happens to match the measured increase in ppm of CO2?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Anthony, yes, exactly. The reason why CAGW supporters can claim that temperatures match CO2 is because they have changed the numbers to make them match. In the last 15 years or so, the actual cooling trend of the raw data has made that match more and more difficult, so much so, that even with data alterations proportional to rising CO2, the best they can manage is a “pause” in global temperatures.

  9. Dmh says:

    It’s all one and the same “adjustment”, CO2 data is not reliable either.
    /1/ They need the warming, otherwise they’d have to admit the cyclic nature of climate.
    /2/ They need the CO2 to increase, because their models are based on the correlation between CO2 and warming, if they had to create another model they’d be at lost because their predictions disagree with *anything* that’s actually measured.
    This is part easily handled, as no one has a CO2-o-“meter” (to measure CO2 levels), then what they say is usually taken as the truth.
    3/ If the USHCN data don’t agree with /1/ and /2/ they’ll naturally change it, to make everything coherent and working according to the plan, and the “reasons” why they “should do it” have been exposed here and other sites many times.
    In summary: they invented all of it!!
    97% of consensual, politically peer-reviewed, speculation. :-)

    • RAH says:

      Now wait a minute are not official atmospheric CO2 measurements coming from NASA?

      • Dmh says:

        Now, the official CO2 data

        looks pretty much like a computer model, rather than direct measurement, then…

        • jimash1 says:

          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

          Explains how they do it.

          “In 1957 Dave Keeling, who was the first to make accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, chose the site high up on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano because he wanted to measure CO2 in air masses that would be representative of much of the Northern Hemisphere, and, hopefully, the globe.”

          So, of course he chose the top of an active volcano . Because certainly there are no gasses seeping forth from that, that might complicate the measurements. Ahem.

        • Morgan says:

          Kilauea was not very active in 1957 and it’s downwind from the top of Mauna Loa. Sometimes the smoke does blow towards the top in which case they wait. When the smoke from Kilauea does reach the top, the CO2 shoots up to an obviously impossible level like 10,000 ppm or something so they don’t use the reading, and that’s rare anyway. It’s so easy to compare the readings to those on Mauna Kea where the astronomers are anyway, including infrared astronomers, they all know what’s what. The CO2 record at Mauna Loa is perfectly accurate.

        • jimash1 says:

          “Kilauea was not very active in 1957 and it’s downwind from the top of Mauna Loa.”

          And that’s great.
          And I am sure that the measurements are very accurate.
          Nevertheless, Mauna Loa itself is an active smoking volcano, atop which the observatory sits.

        • Hmmm. I think Mauna Loa has several vents, Kilauea is by far the most active and Mokuaweoweo is the one on top that steams sulfur, but they are all downwind from the observatory which is around 11,000 feet and a couple of miles upwind from the summit (the summit is over 13,000). The wind there is constantly from the NE and rarely shifts.

          They should have just used Mauna Kea.

        • Dmh says:

          At the NOAA’s site they say:
          /1/ The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
          /2/ All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
          /3/ Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.
          I believe /2/ and /3/ truly reflect their efforts to have reliable data, but /1/ is clearly telling us that their final “product” is a data set generated by a model.
          In their final data,

          the yearly variations (mainly due to seasons, I presume) are reduced to sinusoidal variations around a “mean” that is something like a parabola (locally). How simplistic is that for the variations of temperature worldwide, especially in a time when the temperatures have changed wildly from year to year and we passed from a general trend of warming (up to the ~ 1997-2001 period) into cooling trend (since then).
          I’m still very suspicious that this data is not reliable.
          I doubt that they’re using real measured temperatures as input for their computer code and, even if they are, *what temperature data sets* are they using?
          If they used real raw temps, as the satellite measured ones, the “parabola” would most probably become much more oscillating, and possibly in a random way.

        • What the heck are you talking about? They measure CO2 on Mauna Loa, they don’t measure temps. Have you taken your meds tonight?

        • Dmh says:

          @Morgan Wright, the seasonal variations of CO2 are due to variation of insulation and temperatures worldwide during the year.
          They’re reflected on the Mauna Loa data in the sinusoidal oscillations, around the nearly “parabolic” (my guess) mean ascending curve.
          Is this incorrect in any way?

        • Dmh says:

          err… variation of insolation and temperatures worldwide .. :-)

        • It’s incorrect in every way. I can’t imagine a single way it can be correct.

          Replace the word insolation with vegetation and you are correct. CO2 is highest in April and May before the leaves start to bloom and use up CO2. CO2 is lowest in October when they fall. The leaves decompose during the winter and are mostly decomposed and back in the air in May.

          I’m curious how insolation…never mind. I don’t want to know.

        • Also, replace the word “worldwide” with norther hemisphere

        • Ric Werme says:

          This explains how the folks at Mauna Loa take CO2 samples and detect those contaminated from the local volcanos and other sources http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/

          Their CO2 concentration is the cleanest signal in this entire field, I think they understand what they’re doing.

        • Dmh says:

          @Morgan Wright Your words just proved me right as the plants seasonal cycles are related to insolation, obviously.
          Ocean outgassing is also related to insolation s it’s a chemical process that varies from region to region due to absorption/release of CO2 by algae, totally analogous to plant cycles in this respect.
          Maybe a better description than insolation would be seasonal variation of solar radiations, but it really makes no big difference, as in times of low/high solar radiations you may have plants behaving “out of season” due to variable levels of … insolation.
          This is common knowledge, but I don’t mind if you can understand it or not.

          @Ric Werme, thanks for the link to WUWT, I need to check this a little more in detail. The fact that something “looks suspicious” doesn’t mean that it’s “wrong”.
          To be more precise, I don’t think the folks at Mauna Loa are trying to deceive us, I think they’re are using a biased (with AGW hypothesis) computer code, but I have no direct proof of that.
          If everything is correct with the CO2 levels then my own concept of (seasonal variation of) gas “distribution” on the atmosphere is biased and I want to know why.

        • cdquarles says:

          @Morgan,

          What makes you think that 10,000 ppm carbon dioxide concentrations are ‘impossible’? The sampling site is located on a volcano in an area with active vents. 10,000 ppm is very much possible. Heck, your exhaled breath is about 4,000 ppm carbon dioxide and about 10,000 ppm dihydrogen oxide. There are quite a few sources and sinks for carbon dioxide on this rock. We know that photosynthesizing vegetation can nearly strip out all of the carbon dioxide from the local air. When photosynthesis stops, the same vegetation relies on respiration for metabolic energy, releasing carbon dioxide into the local air.

  10. thegriss says:

    Linked to JoNova as well.

  11. Tom In Indy says:

    Now we know why USHCN and their surrogates go to great lengths in their attempts to silence/ridicule/marginalize their critics. Tony has said all along that the warming is manufactured with fake data, but this result puts it in irrefutable terms.

    Good thing we still have some “flat earthers” looking out for us.

  12. B says:

    Incredible. The odds of this being an accidental relationship must be vanishingly small. This would imply that the errors they claim to be correcting in the temperature data are not only systematic to the present day (meaning that nobody has figured out how to correctly read a thermometer in hundreds of years) but correlate to CO2. Both together are simply unbelievable as a coincidence.

    My best guess is that they drive the alterations from an equation that uses CO2 as an input value. It’s related to their computer models somehow. Data is being altered to match theory.

    • Phil Jones says:

      Their computer model is probably an excel spreadsheet….

      Not what you envision… Some Cray Supercomputer cooled by liquid nitrogen with white lab coat clad scientists surrounding it…

      No I bet Mikey Mann rarely leaves his office… Probably never taken a temperature reading..,

    • Duster says:

      The problem is that unlikely, and even nearly impossible things happen all the time. A lot goes on on this planet is a single day. A friend and I played Risk one afternoon and when he quit I had just thrown nine sixes in a row with a single honest die. That was at the end of a very long run in which I only lost three throws. The point here is that the odds of that series is 1/6^9. “Nearly impossible” some would say, while others would look hard for a cheat of some sort. In fact, it was just the way the dice fell. In the case of this adjustment, there are circumstances that lean in support of Steve, most importantly the fact that the adjustment is systematically biased.

      The reality is that temperature does what it wants rather than what the models say. If it doesn’t do what you expect, it’s back to the chalkboard. You can easily imagine climate scientologists arguing that there’s something “wrong” with the data. In fact, Trenberth did just that. If something is “wrong” with the data, then it can only be due to a very limited number of things: the instruments, the readers, the recording and transmitting methods. If the instruments are the problem, then by analyzing the instrumental behaviour an “adjustment” can be developed (that should ONLY be applied to data collected by that instrument). If the readers are the problem, 1) it can only be some of them, and 2) they probably are not consistent in being a problem, which makes the problem less tractable. Can this really be adjusted for? Probably not, so ANY adjustment that attempts to account for reader behaviour, is likely to be no better – at best – than the raw data. Recording and transmitting methods are also likely to “unbiased” problems: handwriting legibility, transcription errors and the like. Again the raw data is unlikely to be any more biased than the transcribed data. More importantly, from a climatological point of view, any significant (measureable) change in climate will be reflected in the data mass, regardless of whether adjustments are employed or not. Global climate change, if real, should impose its signature on the data from each station.

  13. The mother of all motherlodes?

  14. annieoakley says:

    “They” have to prove that CO2 drives temperature and that temperatures are rising because of CO2. The powers that be must convince everyone that CO2 is a pollutant. If carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant then the EPA under the ‘clean air’ part of their reason to exist can just about control everyone who breathes ( CO2). The entire scheme hinges on convincing most people that CO2 is polluting the whole planet from America.

  15. hazze says:

    There is no need for algorithms in MS Paint ? Sweet Jesus dipped in sugar n rolled in honey…

  16. ossqss says:

    So the models are adjusting the temp.

    Go figure, if a fundamental part of you model reacts to CO2 at the base layer in a certain way, it models it as such. You can bet they are adjusting to fit that parameter. Our observations of such adjustments clearly show that.

    The problem is the obs, no? How do you fix that?

    It is just like Dr. Spencer stated so clearly.

    95% of the observations are wrong.

    Think about it,,,,,,

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

  17. kenskingdom says:

    I’ve just posted at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/adjustments-vs-co2/
    about Australian data (minima). The trend (adjustment vs CO2) has an R squared of 0.777 and against log of CO2 is 0.79.

  18. jlc says:

    Looks like +1.27 C. net adjustment for 85 ppm change in CO2. Or roughly +0.015 C. per ppm CO2.

    So, if CO2 increases from 400 ppm to 600 ppm (100 yrs or less at current rate of increase), the adjustment rate alone guarantees a +3 C. increase (200 x 0.015.) Even if actual USA temps drop by -1.7 C. in the next century, the +3 C. in adjustment alone will allow them to claim they were right and at the mid range of their models (IPCC lately suggests about +1.3 C. global per century.)

    This is outrageous; some fine real detective work going on here ! Someone needs to go down for this.

    • jlc says:

      The graph y-axis was mislabeled as C. instead of the correct F. My comment was posted before this correction was made. So multiply numbers above by 5/9 to convert to F.

  19. MrX says:

    This seems to imply that they know AGW is a scam and they’re adjusting temperatures to maintain at minimum, a linear relationship with CO2 and are just waiting it out for an exponential relationship to present itself at some time in the future (naturally or not). Still, it’s clear they’ve increased the amount of the adjustments over time (increased the slope), even if it still remains linear. They may go to an exponential relationship given enough time.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    .
    Steve Goddard reveals another trousers round ankles moment for the CO2 driven global warming lobby. Temperature data ADJUSTMENTS to the USHCN dataset match the rise in airborne carbon dioxide to R^2=0.988 i.e. almost perfectly.

  21. tallbloke says:

    “My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.”

    Sorry Tony, I’m behind the times. I’ve been busy working on my own heretical notions of what really drives climate change. For which I’m considered “a denier” by one ‘side’ in the debate – and “a pariah” by another,

    Fortunately, the study of science has many facets, not just two. Solar system dynamics hold the key to this puzzle, not what comes out of the tailpipes of politicians and their bulletproof Humvees.

  22. Phil Jones says:

    They changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change to thwart what we are talking about here… Now… Under the guise of Climate Change any Weather Event across the Globe will be a big story… Proof of their Theory!!

    No longer can they be held accountable for temperature readings….

  23. tallbloke says:

    The aberration around 385-390ppm is interesting. You don’t suppose NCDC were trying to exaggerate the 2010 El Nino do you?

    I had to use GIStemp (spit) in this plot, because woodfortrees don’t have USHCN, but you get the idea. Maybe Tony could compare raw with adjusted USHCN for this period to see if it pushed the 2010 event higher than 2006, or even 1998 in the US.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2005/plot/gistemp/from:2005/offset:9/scale:40

  24. Eliza says:

    I would leave this as a sticky post for at least 1 week. Its too important to let die

  25. David A says:

    For me, the “all continuously active USHCN stations” raw plots that Tony regularly displays, demonstrating the DECREASE in record highs vs the md 1930 to early 1940s, is very strong evidence that the adjustments are wrong. TOBS cannot make a record high, higher. In theory it can bleed that high into the next day, but it cannot make T higher.

  26. bit chilly says:

    i agree with eliza ,this post should and the subsequent linked post should stay at the top of the page for at least a week.
    has anyone had a proper dig around in the algorithms used in v1 and v2 ,this would be a hell of a coincidence if one or more of the values have not been arrived at to create this scenario.

  27. Keitho says:

    Isn’t the CO2 level really just a proxy for the date? How good a correlation is there between date and temperature adjustment compared to this astonishing r^2 of 0.988?

    That is how they have hidden their nefarious purpose with the algorithm. Do the adjustment with aCO2 but plot it as a time series to give it some degree of randomness which still leads to the desired outcome. Sort of clever in an undergrad kind of way.

    • The relationship is exponential, not linear.

      • Keitho says:

        Thanks Steve, I see that now. Good job.

      • Andrew McRae says:

        Ah yes, but have you factored in the mainstream radiative transfer theory which says the relationship between pCO2 and equilibrium temperature is logarithmic? So no matter how quickly the CO2 is accelerating over time, on that graph the temperature effect should be gradually flattening out with increased CO2.
        Wouldn’t the observed linear relationship mean they are boosting temperature even more than they “need” to?

        • ftm says:

          “Wouldn’t the observed linear relationship mean they are boosting temperature even more than they “need” to?”

          Scientific accuracy would instill questions, even doubts here. The process is about public relations, branding, salesmanship. It is easier to make a visual argument if the lines “match” or “fit.” See Gore’s AIT, or especially the Brit tv show Climate Wars.

      • Sandy McClintock says:

        Is the R^2 closer to 1.0 when correlating TIME and adjustment compared with your 0.988? (Obviously you need some sort of exponential line fitting function)
        If this R^2 is equal to 1.000 then it would indicate to me that there was a systematic (deliberate?) bias in the adjustments.

  28. ftm says:

    CO2 measurements are more than a proxy for temperature. To avant garde warmistas, they are an instrumental reading of temperature, along with thermometers. The literature hinted at going in that direction years ago, using broad “instrumental” records definitions–which most people would think limited to thermometers. I long suspected the hockey stick type graph were smearing into their creations the Law Dome CO2 concentration records. IOW, the hockey stick is not primarily a product of inventing a sharp spike for its visual scare factors, but its genesis is a quest to imitate the Law Dome CO2 (not isotope) concentration record, as graphically portrayed. (Mauna Loa measurements on the more recent time line.)

    Since the believers believe CO2 controls heat over the past century or ’bouts, using CO2 records to correct the record of human errors in reading thermometers is “good science.” Naturally, its practice seems to be an ex post facto rearrangement of the records to fit their CO2 theory, but hey, this is “Climate Science!”

  29. hunter says:

    You maybe on to something significant.
    It does not seem reasonable to conclude this is evidence of deliberate deception, at least with the information so far. But there is a clear likelihood something is way off.

  30. hunter says:

    If this relationship exists in the global temperature data, that would be very interesting.

  31. Jim Sadell says:

    The day is approaching when the World will realize that the official CO2 record since 1960 and especially since year 2000 has been heavily doctored. The CO2 data manipulation has been done at NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in CA. This has been a multi-decadal effort involving deliberate instrumentation biases and data tempering ….

  32. Sandy McClintock says:

    If there is a general migration of weather stations from the hotter town centres to exposed rural locations then the ‘Homogenists’ (those that trust in the use of homogenisation) would expect to see a downwards adjustment of earlier observations. I can understand seeing a few specific step-changes per weather station, but I am alarmed by what we see currently; it looks like ‘trend-line bending’ rather than step-change removal.

    Has anyone asked to go through the homogenisation code looking for silly assumptions or goofs? For example step-change detection might only look for drops in temperature (i.e where weather stations moved from the hotter town centres to exposed rural locations) If corresponding upward step-changes are ignored, this could introduce a bias.

  33. Gail Combs says:

    The political background:

    Remember from 1981 to 2013, Hansen was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That is plenty of time for a Political Activist with an arrest record to pack his department with like minded activists who would have no trouble ERRRrr ‘Correcting’ the records for The Cause™

    First there is the definition of “Climate Change” by The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change The USA ratified the treaty in 21/03/94 so was ‘obliged’ to support the treaty.

    The official definition:

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php

    The new definition of “Climate Change” specifically excludes all natural changes in the climate and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, and considers only atmospheric changes.

    The IPCC mandate is similar:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    The IPCC’s ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘

    Then we look at the Journals and the Climategate e-mails:
    A sample:

    Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).

    I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.

    New Zealand Climate Change has taken a bunch of e-mails and put them together in a cohesive whole. An honest scientist should be horrified after reading this set of e-mails. It is quite damning.
    ……………

    The interesting date was the IPCC was established in 1988. This is the same year a political activist with an arrest record along with US senator Tim Wirth reached into their bag of dirty tricks and set-up a hearing on a Climate Change bill on the hottest day for DC.

    Straight from an interview witth Senator Tim Wirth:

    …we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it….

    Q And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

    … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

    So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

    The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time. …

    Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the [press] — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

    So AGW has been about politics, DIRTY POLITICS at that and NOT about the climate from the formation of the IPCC back in 1988. Why would anyone have any doubts that Dirty Tricks Hansen wouldn’t adjust the temperatures to agree with the CO2 data? Especially with an R = 0.988.

  34. Frank says:

    I would like this!!!…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s