New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
you say you know who to trust but no one who knows most about climate change agrees with you.
no - DiCaprio was named "a" UN Messenger of Peace... with a special focus on climate change. Current UN Messenger's of Peace:
United Nations Messengers of Peace/Goodwill Ambassadors are distinguished individuals, carefully selected from the fields of art, literature, science, entertainment, sports or other fields of public life, who have agreed to help focus worldwide attention on the work of the United Nations. Backed by the highest honour bestowed by the Secretary-General on a global citizen, these prominent personalities volunteer their time, talent and passion to raise awareness of United Nations efforts to improve the lives of billions of people everywhere.
I suggested you get a grip and speak to the bigger picture... speak to the carbon footprint of DiCaprio that has you so flipped out... and compare it to the yearly global carbon emissions output. Of course you ignored that; so let the waldo help ya out, hey! The 2014 estimate for global carbon emissions was "40 billion tons"... I read DiCaprio had the UK futureforests.org association calculate his carbon footprint for the last 10 years, arriving at a figure of 11 tons per year. Towards a "Carbon Neutral" designation:
To help balance out, or neutralize, his personal carbon dioxide emissions, Leonardo is having trees planted in a sustainable forestry project in Mexico and investing in a couple of alternative energy projects; a micro-hydro dam in Germany and Biomass Gasifiers in India.
but like I said Colpy, your fake outrage and obsession with Dicaprio simply rests with your not liking the "Messenger's message"! Right Colpy? :mrgreen:
since you clearly know nothing of the science proper, and you fixate on the likes of DiCaprio... just who do you, as you say, "trust"? Who do you trust Colpy... and why?
just what is an "alarmist' to you, hey Colpy? And just who constitutes your declared "GW alarmist hierarchy"? C'mon Colpy, NAME THE NAMES that you fixate and obsess on... while you ignore the science, while you revel in your denial. NAME THE NAMES, Colpy!
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
The Yavari Valley rainforest, Peru Photo: Alamy
By Christopher Booker
25 Apr 2015
The Telegraph
2470 Comments
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
Below, the raw data in graph form
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
More details of the Global Warming Policy Foundation's International Temperature Data Review Project are available on the inquiry panel's website www.tempdatareview.org
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
The Yavari Valley rainforest, Peru Photo: Alamy
By Christopher Booker
25 Apr 2015
The Telegraph
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
Below, the raw data in graph form
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
More details of the Global Warming Policy Foundation's International Temperature Data Review Project are available on the inquiry panel's website www.tempdatareview.org
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph
Don't let him follow this link, no telling what sort of graphs he can come up with.
Weather History Data for Your Location
Weather History Data for Your Location
Colpy... more? Yet more of your obsession with DiCaprio?
but like I said Colpy, your fake outrage and obsession with DiCaprio simply rests with your not liking the "Messenger's message"! Right Colpy? :mrgreen:
hey lil' lapdog... you've got a post waiting for you! You know, the one you ran away from... repeatedly! The one you refused to answer... repeatedly! Would you like me to post it again?
standard British tabloid/Booker bullshyte! But hey now, this was exactly the impetus behind the Koch Brothers funded Best Project... you know, the denier/skeptic fueled undertaking that ultimately confirmed the integrity of the existing major surface temperature dataset records. WotHappened there, hey deniers!
how about another British rag article like this one: Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate
of course, there are no shortage of reviews done that have shown the insignificant difference homogenization makes to the global results... in fact, adding a slight cooling influence overall.
the 5 declared GWPF "top scientists" have a long-standing record of questioning climate science... why the pack-leader, Pielke, is the "technical support" behind the ill-fated surfacestations nonsense from Tony Willard Watts of WTFIUWT infamy! :mrgreen: So ya, a completely denier manufactured 'fake controversy' to supposedly investigate adjustments... adjustments that have all been published and stood the test of peer-response! If there was any supposed legitimacy behind the GWPF undertaking, they wouldn't have purposely so skewed the selection of the declared "top scientists"!
of course, a real legitimate review is actually underway, undertaken by 9 legitimate scientists actively involved in homogenization efforts/pursuits... one intended to improve on existing homogenization, has been underway for some time now... per the World Meteorological Organization: Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM)
Terms of Reference
- Explore ways, building on the existing work, to identify the best performing, skilled and efficient homogenization methods and quality control procedures for the different climate essential variables and time scales (from monthly to sub-daily);
- Identify and evaluate currently available procedures and software for climate time-series quality control (e.g., identifying non-systematic biases in climatic records);
- Identify and assess skills and efficiencies of modern and innovative homogenization methods, to identify more robust and efficient methods including the associated software;
- Provide guidance to Members on methodologies, standards and software required for quality control of climate time-series, with a special focus on temperature and precipitation variables at the daily scale, but also explore existing quality controls for other variables and time-scales.
clearly you are the epitome of the 'eye of the denier beholder'
do you deny the multi-decadal loss of Arctic sea-ice extent/volume? Well do you?
what capStain refuses to acknowledge
following are the Arctic long-term melting trend lines for both Extent and Volume... for an appropriate perspective on Arctic sea-ice.
Hilarious.... Can't answer one single question, albeit, I understand that if you did ever respond, you would undermine your entire position.
A tough choice for ya weirdo... Either state that the North is ice-free as predicted by the ecotard experts and look a fool or admit to being a denier of reality and look a fool
only a denier, as you say, FOOL (like you) would work so feverishly to continue to beak-off over a few predictions... while ignoring the reality of the multi-decadal melting loss of Arctic sea-ice extent/volume. What's a denier FOOL like you gonna do otherwise? :mrgreen:
Sounds a bit like Jehovah witnesses....
Incorrect Watchtower Dates
no longer accepted
539 A.D.
1780
1798
1799
1829
1840
1844
1846
1872
1874
1878
1880
1881
1891
1906
1910
1914
1915
1917
1918
1920
1921
1925
1926
1928
1932
1935
1940s
1951
1975
2000
Ongoing