Sunday, January 13, 2008

Hey, guess what!

As Tom Nelson points out, "NASA and the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin team up on some shoddy climate reporting".
Here.

Just a few comments:
  1. Incredibly, the story makes no mention at all of satellite temperature measurements.

    I completely agree with Climate Skeptic here:
    It is just another reason why the surface temperature measurement system is crap, and we should be depending on satellites instead. Can anyone come up with one single answer as to why climate scientists eschew satellite measurements for surface temperatures EXCEPT that the satellites don't give the dramatic answer they want to hear? Does anyone for one second imagine that any climate scientist would spend 5 seconds defending the surface temperature measurement system over satellites if satellites gave higher temperature readings?

    More on the non-alarming temperatures measured by satellites is here, here and here.


One can only assume that it there is much less justification for adding "corrections" to satellite data; and, as we have seen before, the only way that you can get a warming trend is to add said "corrections".
In other words, the entirety of the warming that we are seeing from the US surface stations is effectively made up by the scientists.

Without their positive bias, the raw data shows no significant warming trend at all. Further, if we accept that many of the measuring stations are now in "warmer areas"—i.e. they are now near roads, or heat exchangers, or are in any other way affected by the warmer air of a city or town when twenty years ago they were not—surely any bias applied should be a negative one.

In other words, in terms of the raw data, there is no real warming. If we were to apply a sensible negative bias, the US data would actually show a cooling trend.

Which is, of course, more than a little inconvenient for the anthropogenic climate change alarmists. In fact, it probably alarms them somewhat...

8 comments:

A N Other said...

Not that the greenies will believe it, they'll just stick their fingers in their ears as usual and go "La-la-la! Global warming denying morons! Al Gore is always right! La-la-la!" While the smart money goes on investing in waterproof clothing, not sun cream.

Umbongo said...

Thank God then that the BBC Radio 4 8:00am news could tell the waiting millions of a NASA report that the Antartica ice cover is melting and have Roger Harrabin (the BBC environment "analyst", well-known English graduate and president of the "Gore for World President" campaign) trampling all over those wicked AGW sceptics.

e said...

But WHY is there this worldwide conspiracy involving scientists and politicians to convince us of global warming? Qui Bono, who benefits and how?

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Qui Bono, who benefits and how?"

Politicians benefit from the increased power that it brings them.

Scientists gain prestige and, more pertinently, benefit hugely from the amount of money available for research. Last year, the US alone spent $4 billion on AGW research.

Eco-loons benefit through an increased leverage to their anti-tech agenda.

Lefties benefit through US-bashing opportunities and the idea that self-interest is evil and destroying the planet.

Blah, blah, blah...

DK

Mark Wadsworth said...

Re what Umbongo says, see here.

Kill them all.

Anonymous said...

Here is a classic case of a publication finding itself at odds with itself, its political stance and those of its advertisers or those who put pressure on it if it doesnt follow the party line. Just another chink of free speech falling onto the plinth.
It reminds me of the man who wrote an abusive drunken email to his boss and woke up the next morning full of panic as he knew he had to face him at work.

The first article came out a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

This article came out today.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Interesting to read the comments underneath the second piece.

Anonymous said...

....sorry the second link should read...........

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011#reader-comments

E said...

Politicians don't need a "green agenda" to gain more power so why jump on this particular bandwagon?

If as you argue persuing such an agenda will bring financial ruin to western economies that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

That scientists should follow where the research grants are I find easier to understand. As for eco loons and lefties they are following the band wagon for their own reasons not driving it.

Setting aside our natural desire to lampoon and ridicule politicians as idiots, why is Gordon Brown so keen to persue such a self defeating policy?