The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[speling bee]

Here's the opening bullet... from the 2010 'paper'



And here's Watts after Berkeley published their conclusions the following year, which he promised to accept (my bold) ...



Watts accuses Watts of a Straw Man argument. Nothing wrong with changing your view as the fatcs changed, but bona fide scientists are usually at pains to correct their previous wrong conclusions, Watts just leaves his in print, to be cited by planet-hating zealots on Contractor forums ...

and if Watts was wrong, and he describes Goddard as 'wronger than wrong' who is wrongest?

But before we get ahead of ourselves pj, the SPPI sounds like a serious research centre with robust academic links, like the Scott Polar Research Institute, part of Cambridge Uni. Is that right?

[pjclarke]

But before we get ahead of ourselves pj, the SPPI sounds like a serious research centre with robust academic links, like the Scott Polar Research Institute, part of Cambridge Uni. Is that right?

Keep 'em coming. I had money on England, I need a good laugh.

[speling bee]

Keep 'em coming. I had money on England, I need a good laugh.

I'm sure BB will be along in a minute to explain that you moved the goalposts.

[BlasterBates]

I'm sure BB will be along in a minute to explain that you moved the goalposts.

You'll like this, it's a peer reviewed paper....

Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure

Not only is England sh*te at football...English climate scientists are sh*te at climate science....

[pjclarke]

You'll like this, it's a peer reviewed paper....

Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure

Not only is England sh*te at football...English climate scientists are sh*te at climate science....

Excuse me? The central prediction of the paper, referring to a decade scale is

'at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.'

So, as we're only half way there, your blog seems to have ejaculated prematurely....?

[pjclarke]

I'm sure BB will be along in a minute to explain that you moved the goalposts.

You mean like demanding a peer-reviewed reference then complaining, once the demand is met that it is 'too high level'?

Whatever. Perhaps one of our resident 'sceptics' could explain what looks to me like complete and docile credulousness towards claims by Booker 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.'

So here's the challenge, 'sceptical' guys. Find the actual data that show a reversal of a 3C/century warming trend to an actual cooling. Good luck with that. Personally I think it is BS, but please feel free to embrace known disinformers like Watts and Booker. Hey, what do we have to lose? Go for it,

[speling bee]

You'll like this, it's a peer reviewed paper....

Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure

Not only is England sh*te at football...English climate scientists are sh*te at climate science....

Thanks BB. I1 was looking for a peer reviewed paper in a learned journal backing up the point about fabricated temperature data skewing figures as per EO's posts.

That link takes me to another (!) blog, not a peer reviewed paper. Is the critique in the blog article published in a learned journal somewhere and can you share the reference? Thanks.

Also, I trust it covers the fabricated data points?

[pjclarke]

Here's a figure from the model that Pierre Gosselin was sneering about on his blog ...



" Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010. Previous predictions starting from November 1960, 1965,... 2005 are shown in red, and 22 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) model simulations that have not been initialised with observations are shown in green. In all cases, the shading represents the probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (blue) starts from November 2013. All data are rolling annual mean values."

[EternalOptimist]

Just leave the data alone. Stop trying to beat a confession out of it

[MicrosoftBob]

Meh

Lie, damn lies, and statistics