What Climate change?

[darmstadt]

If you have all the facts to hand, you will see that there are two sides to every argument and that both sides are right. So, you can only have an opinion if you do not have all the facts to hand...I think this pretty much summarises up the climate argument.

[TykeMerc]

If the climate data is so squeaky clean, free of manipulation by those with an agenda and irrefutable then a third party putting the data and the methods employed in collecting it under a microscope will only add veracity to it by confirmation.

If on the other hand it turns out to be somewhat bent, corrupt or subject to a false interpretation then it should be suitably outed for what it is.

In the long run Government and population behaviour is being shaped by the AGW assertions, just look at the "green" tax burden that's been imposed.

[pjclarke]

Having lost the moral case for redistribution of wealth via taxation as proven by the appalling way that money is managed and twice bankrupting the country on its last two periods in office the left have thrown their envy and guilt driven ideals onto the totem of climate change. "In the interests of fairness" and "helping the less well off" has switched to "saving the planet" as the cause with which to beat and control people into submitting themselves to their ideal of a fair and equal society (everyone is poor except themselves).

Once climate change is taken away from them what next? Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

Yep, if Christopher Booker in the opinion page of the Telegraph says that the numbers are fiddled, that's good enough for me.

But, as I said, don't hold your breath, I'm willing to bet that this 'panel' will produce diddly squat.

[pjclarke]

If the climate data is so squeaky clean, free of manipulation by those with an agenda and irrefutable then a third party putting the data and the methods employed in collecting it will only add veracity to it by confirmation.

You believe the GWPF has no agenda?

[BlasterBates]

Having lost the moral case for redistribution of wealth via taxation as proven by the appalling way that money is managed and twice bankrupting the country on its last two periods in office the left have thrown their envy and guilt driven ideals onto the totem of climate change. "In the interests of fairness" and "helping the less well off" has switched to "saving the planet" as the cause with which to beat and control people into submitting themselves to their ideal of a fair and equal society (everyone is poor except themselves).

Once climate change is taken away from them what next? Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

Unadjusted US temps are virtually flat over the 20th century:

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend | Watts Up With That?

[pjclarke]

Unadjusted US temps are virtually flat over the 20th century:

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend | Watts Up With That?

No. A 10% subset of US temperatures, selected pretty much arbitrarily, with no area weighting, and with known biases not addressed, show no trend. So what?

[BlasterBates]

What is interesting though in the US data is how you see the effect of ocean cycles:

[DimPrawn]

What is interesting though in the US data is how you see the effect of ocean cycles:

Jeez, you mean my car is affecting the Ocean cycles, as well as causing war, starvation and Ebola across the globe?

[pjclarke]

What is interesting though in the US data is how you see the effect of ocean cycles:

Primarily the PDO and AMO. Am I the only one to see a trend in this 'trendless' data?

[pjclarke]

Yep, if Christopher Booker in the opinion page of the Telegraph says that the numbers are fiddled, that's good enough for me.

But, as I said, don't hold your breath, I'm willing to bet that this 'panel' will produce diddly squat.

Victor Venema, a researcher with the Meteorological Institute at the University of Bonn, with many published articles on climate data homnogenisation and who has forgotten more about the topic than Christopher Booker will ever know, points out that while removing known errors in the raw land data results in a modest increase in trend compared to the raw data, adjustments to sea surface temperatures have the opposite effect, and as they sea is rather larger than land surface, the net effect is that the trend in the raw global data is of faster warming than the processed data.

One looks forward to the GWPF panel reporting this fact and calling for faster and more effective mitigation efforts.


Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming

You can read Victor's papers on his website or there's more from the blogosphere

Global warming: Adjusting temperature measurements.

Temperature data is not

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...omogenisation/

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

HotWhopper: Denier Weirdness: A mock delegation from the Heartland Institute and a fake enquiry from the GWPF

moyhu


(For extra points, research the links between Booker, the GWPF and the private University of Buckingham....)