Climate-Denier Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Koch Brothers

[Blackleaf]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data



By Christopher Booker
21 Jun 2014
The Telegraph

12740 Comments

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.


The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

 

[captain morgan]

How are climate change deniers any different from the intellectually disabled and why shouldn't they be treated accordingly?

Using your logic, you could act as the poster-boy for the justification of retroactive abortion to whatever age you are today

So he was paid by industry. Big deal. That is not proof that his work in invalid. Someone has to pay for the research to prove the globull warming empire is a fraud.

Suzuki greedily accepted money from the O&G industry too... Where are all the tards and the conspiracy theories in terms of that?

 

[Tonington]

Too right it is.

Yes, you're offering no proof. Just popular unsubstantiated claims. Like I said in my first post.

Of course they make adjustments, well described effects like urban heat islands and other land use changes require adjustments. You're assuming that the adjustments are made not to remove bias in the record, but to add bias. Well that's been studied, and you're wrong. See:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/vose-etal2012.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Compoetal_GRL_AuxiliaryMaterial_final.pdf
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Berkeley Earth- Summary of Findings

 

[gerryh]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data



By Christopher Booker
21 Jun 2014
The Telegraph

12740 Comments

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.


The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

So, your proof is an editorial with a link to a blog. :roll:

 

[petros]

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years...

Was it supposed to remain cold? How did it get to be the coldest point in the Holocene and why should it have remained that way?

When I hear a viable reason why it should have remained cold, I'll go back to team panic.

 

[Blackleaf]

Yes, you're offering no proof. Just popular unsubstantiated claims. Like I said in my first post.

Of course they make adjustments, well described effects like urban heat islands and other land use changes require adjustments. You're assuming that the adjustments are made not to remove bias in the record, but to add bias. Well that's been studied, and you're wrong. See:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/vose-etal2012.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Compoetal_GRL_AuxiliaryMaterial_final.pdf
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Berkeley Earth- Summary of Findings

Expert team plans to examine 'adjusted’ temperature data

It is only the adjusted surface records which show 2014 to have been 'the hottest year on record', writes Christopher Booker

The sun rises above Lake Michigan as ice forms along the shore in Chicago Photo: Kiichiro Sato/AP



By Christopher Booker
21 Feb 2015
The Telegraph

523 Comments

Mother Nature has certainly been showing her amusement at those excitable claims last month that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”. In the north-eastern US, the past month has been the coldest since records were kept, and four of the five Great Lakes are on the verge of freezing over completely for the first time in living memory. Snow has fallen in Greece and across the Middle East as far south as Saudi Arabia, where locals gleefully building snowmen were greeted by a fatwa sternly pointing out that to make images of animate creatures was an offence against Islamic law.

How did we know that 2014 was “the hottest year ever”? This was based entirely on surface temperature data originally compiled by the US Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), but then translated into their own versions by the compilers of three of the five official temperature records. But as I explained in two previous articles, a growing number of experts across the world have been discovering that something very odd has been going on with these records. Again and again they found that, checking them against the raw data originally recorded by weather stations, this had then been comprehensively “adjusted”, almost invariably in the same direction.

Earlier data had been “adjusted” downwards, more recent data upwards, to show much more of a warming trend than the actual recorded temperatures justified. Often, as Paul Homewood demonstrated on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog – after checking many weather stations in South America and across the Arctic – a cooling trend over the past century had been transformed into a warming trend.

It was this that helped to explain why it was only the adjusted surface records which showed 2014 to have been “the hottest year on record”. The other two official records, based on satellite measurements, which only go back to 1979, show nothing of the kind.

The international fallout from my two articles has been huge. The second, headed “The fiddling of temperature data has been the biggest science scandal ever” (see below), scored a record 30,000 comments on The Telegraph website. But what is particularly telling has been the silence of GHCN and the compilers of the other surface records in response to requests from Homewood and others for a proper explanation of how and why they had needed to make so many adjustments to the original data.

What is now needed is a meticulous analysis of all the data, to establish just how far these adjustments have distorted the picture the world has been given. Although I cannot yet reveal any details, I gather that a responsible foundation is gathering an expert team to do just that. If the results confirm what has already been unearthed by Homewood and other analysts, from the US to New Zealand, this may indeed turn out to have been the greatest scandal in the history of science.


Expert team plans to examine 'adjusted’ temperature data - Telegraph


***************************


And here is Booker's brilliant article - which every Warmist should read - which has attracted a record 31,248 comments so far...


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY


By Christopher Booker
07 Feb 2015
The Telegraph

31248 Comments


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

 

[gerryh]

again, you are posting editorials as proof. They aren't proof of squat aside from the guy is stuck on himself and thinks everyone should believe him rather than someone else..... with NO PROOF!

 

[Blackleaf]

again, you are posting editorials as proof. They aren't proof of squat aside from the guy is stuck on himself and thinks everyone should believe him rather than someone else..... with NO PROOF!

I've noticed you can't prove Mr Booker wrong. He's obviously rattled you.

There is a team being assembled as we speak which is to look at the data which the Warmists have been releasing which appears to show the world having warmed in recent decades. Now there is much evidence that this data originally showed that the world is cooling, and has been since at least the 1930s, the warmest decade on record when America suffered from its devastating Dust Bowl, but that the Warmists have manipulated the data to make it look as though the world has been getting warmer since then. Now if this team discovers that the Warmists HAVE been manipulating the data - which also tries to make out that the huge cooling which Iceland experienced in the 1970s which devastated its economy didn't actually happen - and disgusing data which shows global cooling as being global warming - then the whole Warmist religion will finally be exposed as a big lie and will no longer be able to continue beyond a fringe of die-hard lunatics.

If I were you, I'd be very worried. People are now really starting to take a long, hard look at your religion and it's about to be exposed big time. When that team finds proof that the Warmists have been disguising global cooling as global warming let's hope the proof is broadcast on all major news networks and plastered all over the internet.

 

[gerryh]

I've noticed you can't prove Mr Booker wrong. He's obviously rattled you.

There is a team being assembled as we speak which is to look at the data which the Warmists have been releasing which appears to show the world having warmed in recent decades. Now there is much evidence that this data originally showed that the world is cooling, and has been since at least the 1930s, the warmest decade on record when America suffered from its devastating Dust Bowl, but that the Warmists have manipulated the data to make it look as though the world has been getting warmer since then. Now if this team discovers that the Warmists HAVE been manipulating the data - which also tries to make out that the huge cooling which Iceland experienced in the 1970s which devastated its economy didn't actually happen - and disgusing data which shows global cooling as being global warming - then the whole Warmist religion will finally be exposed as a big lie and will no longer be able to continue beyond a fringe of die-hard lunatics.

If I were you, I'd be very worried.

I don't need to prove mr. booker wrong.


and btw, You calling me a "warmist" is along the same "stupid" lines as waldo calling me a denier.

 

[Blackleaf]

I don't need to prove mr. booker wrong.

No, you don't. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can prove a Warmist wrong. It's fairly simple.

There is overwhelming evidence that Warmists have changed data which shows global cooling to make it look as though the world is getting warmer. I shouldn't think it will take long for this team of Mr Booker's that's being assembled to look into this iffy Warmist data will proof once and for all that the Warmists have been manipulating data which actually shows global cooling. Once they have proven this has happened - that the world is getting naturally colder but the Warmists have disguised this data as global warming - the Warmist religion will be dead and buried.

 

[gerryh]

No, you don't. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can prove a Warmist wrong. It's fairly simple.

There is overwhelming evidence that Warmists have changed data which shows global cooling to make it look as though the world is getting warmer. I shouldn't think it will take long for this team of Mr Booker's that's being assembled to look into this iffy Warmist data will proof once and for all that the Warmists have been manipulating data which actually shows global cooling. Once they have proven this has happened - that the world is getting naturally colder but the Warmists have disguised this data as global warming - the Warmist religion will be dead and buried.

and again, it appears that we are to take your word for this "decline".


So, I am hearing that the world is getting warmer.
I am hearing that the world is getting cooler.
and, I am hearing that we are in a lull and the temps are staying steady.

and yet, no one seems willing to give straight out facts without fudging the data one way or another to support their claims.

 

[waldo]

I don't actually give a $hit that Soon took money from the Koch brothers. Most academics are required to look for outside funding, and they'll get it wherever they can. The Koch brothers also donated money to the BEST project, which examined the surface temperature record. The strength of the methods proposed and used were being lauded by the deniers long before the results came out. When the results were published? Silence. The results affirmed the surface records produced by NOAA, CRU and NASA GISS. Yes, believe it or not making adjustments to data doesn't mean the results are fraudulent, or wrong...to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of what is actually done.

as you're well aware, one of the standard denier talking points is to claim climate scientists write papers (fudge/manipulate data and methodology to bring forward findings) that align with, "preconceived results" that funding sources are calling for. This highlighted expose is simply that; of course, for anyone who has followed the subject for any time, "Willie Soon", is a well known denier player who hasn't actually written that many related legitimate peer-review papers. Most of what he's written, most of what get's played up and critiqued is what he writes in articles hosted across the likes of think-tanks, advocacy groups (like the Heartland Institute), blogs, etc.

of course, the Koch Brothers funding the Best Project wasn't something they did to "get at the truth"; clearly, if that was the case, former "skeptic" Richard Muller wouldn't necessarily have been chosen to lead it. To his (and his teams credit) they put together an approach/methodology that even Muller couldn't deny. And, of course, that underlying intent of the Koch Brothers funding blew up on them, blew up on them real good, with Best Project results that reaffirmed the integrity of all the assorted surface temperature record datasets.

The source of funding doesn't mean the results are wrong. That's a logical fallacy. Apparently, like Gerry is asking for, it's too much for people to actually read something and explain why they think the results are wrong.

the OP NYT link isn't the reference that includes mention of the Monckton/Soon et al, paper. That would be "UKIP climate expert", Lawdy (fake Lawdy) Christopher Monckton. Member Colpy's post gives that impression because he includes the OP NYT link and then immediately quotes from his breitbart article that does include mention of that paper (and the breitbart link is at the very bottom of his post). Member gerryh started his "standing credited papers" implication well before that Colpy post... and my challenging gerryh was in that vein; i.e. did he have particular paper(s) in mind... did he have a particular presumed "standing and credited paper" in mind?

That latest paper of Soon et al. referred to in this article, what does it actually say? They think that the universe must be confined by the process design limits that engineers impose on their work. There is no explanation why feedback factors cannot exceed this parameter. Further, there's no use of actual data to test the validity of this parameter. So when they get a modelling result that is 1/3 of the IPCC response, well that's actually a product of an imposed limit which they did not test the validity of, or support with references to other works. Not very convincing results.

See, how hard is that? Read, ask questions. Who cares where the money came from? When the science is good, it doesn't matter.

I challenged member Colpy to support his breitbart linked reference to that nonsense Monckton/Soon et al, paper. As I expect you're well aware, there is no shortage of legitimate critique of that simplistic "one model" paper. Why... I just checked with a CC search and a few weeks back member Locutus did one of his C&P drive-by's on this paper... but he didn't get any bites... linked from that renowned scientific... er... rightee political source, "Small Dead Animals" :mrgreen:

 

[Blackleaf]

and again, it appears that we are to take your word for this "decline".


So, I am hearing that the world is getting warmer.
I am hearing that the world is getting cooler.
and, I am hearing that we are in a lull and the temps are staying steady.

and yet, no one seems willing to give straight out facts without fudging the data one way or another to support their claims.

The world is getting colder. You only need to look around you and you can see that. Surely the Great Lakes freezing over for the first time in recorded history and snow falling, rather unusually, in Saudi Arabia will tell you that.

The hottest decade on record was the 1930s, when it was so hot that the US suffered its devastating Dust Bowl. That's what the real data shows us. When people back in the 1970s banged on about Global Cooling, they were right. That is what the true data shows.

Yet the Warmists have taken this data which shows global cooling - global cooling which, rather obviously, is still happening - and fiddled with it to make it appear as though the world is getting warmer. This decreased the temperatures of the 1930s and exaggerated modern temperatures, and made a true downward curve in temperatures to a false, artificial upward one.

The world is getting cooler, not warmer. The Great Lakes are freezing over. Snow is falling in Saudi Arabia, much to the bewilderment of the Saudis. And it's a natural cooling. Nothing to do with human activities.

 

[gerryh]

The world is getting colder. You only need to look around you and you can see that. Surely the Great Lakes freezing over for the first time in recorded history and snow falling, rather unusually, in Saudi Arabia will tell you that.

.

Sorry, looking around me, I see the mildest winter I can remember, here in Calgary.

 

[waldo]

That is what the true data shows.

please provide a/your source for your labelled "true data".

 

[Blackleaf]

Sorry, looking around me, I see the mildest winter I can remember, here in Calgary.

And we also see four of the five the Great Lakes freezing over.

It is an unusual event for three of the lakes to freeze over, which only happens once every 6 to 8 years. Four or more freezing is a most unusual event.

Also unusual is the fact that Saudi Arabia has just found itself under a blanket of snow. This event is so rare that the mad Muslim leaders have come out calling the building of snowmen to be "anti-Islamic." They don't seem to know what's hit them.

Is Global Warming causing four of the five Great Lakes to freeze over and for snow to fall in Saudi Arabia?

 

[MHz]

Here's a little task that the 'scientists' here could do in just two links. One that shows the rifts in the Arctic and the other to show the actual ice-cap dimensions and then look at the shape and see if heat rising straight up from the rifts could cause the ice to melt in a certain pattern. That is if there are no strong currents, adjust as needed, I would think the Gulf Stream would keep the warm water in the Arctic so the only exit would be the other side of the ice and that warmer water would join the water that is flowing over the Pacific Rift.

 

[petros]

After the LIA, you'd have to have serious screws loose to believe there wouldn't be recovery and warming.

 

[Angstrom]

I'm so exhausted with this subject I'm looking forward to it happening.

 

[MHz]

oops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI&list=WL&index=2