JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Why scientists get it wrong

David Archibalds new book

by David Archibald

David will be speaking with the Anthony Watts Tour in Australia. I’ll be buying a copy of his book.

June 1, 2010

This is a shorter version of the Quadrant Online extract.

Edited extract: “Why did so many scientists get it wrong?” from David Archibald’s book - The Past and Future of Climate:

If the data and forecasts in this book are correct, then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in Australia are all wrong. How can this be? Firstly, there aren’t that many scientists involved in the IPCC deliberations. The inner core is possibly twenty souls. Secondly, they were untroubled by the necessity to concoct fraudulent data to get their desired results. The only unknown question regarding the IPCC scientists is “Did they actually believe in the global warming that they were promoting?”

It turns out that they did, and possibly still do. That is shown by the Climategate emails released on 20th November, 2009. The Climategate emails are a selection of emails amongst members of the inner core plus minor characters. The fact that the IPCC scientists believed in the global warming they were promoting means that their morality at that level was better than expected, but it also means that they are a lot more stupid than expected. Nevertheless, their behaviour in promoting the notion of global warming using fraudulent statistics is reprehensible and hopefully they will be duly punished in this world or the next.

The history of the global warming fraud has been detailed in a number of books published recently, including a number on the climategate emails alone. A good analysis of the emails can be found in a book entitled “The Climategate Emails” by John Costella, which can be downloaded from the Lavoisier Group website.

One of the earliest Climategate emails shows how the results of research were tailored to a political script. On 29th July, 1999, Adam Markham of WWF (a non-government organisation formerly know as the World Wildlife Fund) wrote to University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:

I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.

They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.

This email shows the role of the likes of WWF in coordinating a global consensus to stay on a consistent message. In this instance, they were worried that East Anglia report would be less scary than the Australian one.

The alarmists scientists also did their best to control the peer review process in order to stop the publication of papers critical of global warming theory. In 1999, Tom Wigley, one of the inner core, emailed his one of his co-conspirators (their word) to say:

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get the editorial board members to resign will probably not work—we must get rid of von Storch too.

On 20th January, 2005, Tom Wigley wrote with respect of another journal editor:

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official American Geophysical Union channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

Michael Mann, infamous for having concocted the hockey stick, replied:

Yeah, basically this is just a heads-up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose Geophysical Research Letters.

What Dr Mann was afraid of was losing control of the climate papers published in Geophysical Research Letters.

If you think that it is a bit harsh to state that the alarmist scientists were aware that they were committing fraud, consider the next email from Phil Jones on 5th July, 2005:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

This email shows that one of the major IPCC authors held views in private that he dare not state publicly. Post Climategate, Phil Jones has stated that the world has not warmed for the last fifteen years. Phil Jones was also aware that he had reason to hide data, as shown by this email dated 6th July, 2005:

I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.

Michael Mann was aware that perception was more important than reality in promoting global warming alarmism, as shown by this email from him dated 15th November, 2005 discussing work by Steve McIntyre:

He almost had a point with a mathematical issue, but as we all know, that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s right, as we all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial plausibility to get traction. In this case, they might, so it’s probably good to at least be prepared.

In the same email, Mann reports that they have taken back control of Geophysical Research Letters:

The Geophysical Research Letters leak may have been plugged up now with new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have Climate Research and Energy and Environment, and will go there if necessary.

Michael Mann’s talents weren’t limited to just stacking editorial panels at scientific journals, he also did Congressional committees, as shown by this email dated 13th February, 2006:

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.

For those who still might consider that the underlying science is solid, despite the behaviour of the scientists, the following email shows that the alarmist scientists were well aware of the divergence between their models and reality. On 11th October, 2009, Kevin Trenberth, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research wrote:

Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The data published in the August 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

In the same vein, further from Kevin Trenberth on 14th October, 2009:

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

The Australian Bureaucracies shameful half-truths

[This is my headline above. I like that David puts some focus on our own institutions. Without the funding and pressure from large think-tanks such as in the US, our bureaucrats are getting away with outrageously sloppy or misleading statements--JN]

Now let’s proceed on to discussing error in the Australian scientific establishment. A very fresh example is a document published in March 2010 as a joint effort between the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology called “State of the Climate”. In the preamble to the document, this statement is made:

The Bureau of Meteorology has been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years, and CSIRO has been conducting atmospheric and marine research for over 60 years.

Now the CSIRO might be forgiven for not having a corporate memory more than 60 years long, but why did they and the Bureau of Meteorology only use 50 years of data to produce the following graph when they had more than 100 years of data they could have used?

Figure 71: Dubious graph from CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology document

Well the reason they did not use a longer time period is that it would not have shown the warming trend that they needed to portray. They started their graph in the 1970s cooling period despite having a data record more than twice as long.

Evidence of how low these institutions have fallen is on the back page of the State of the Climate document, on which it is stated:

Australia will be hotter in coming decades

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue at current levels, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5.0 ºC by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.

It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.

Climate change is real

Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

Consider the claim above that, “CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.” in the light of Figure 8 in this book showing that all the warming in the Perth temperature record in the last 100 years occurred in one year, 1976. These once-worthy institutions are relying upon a credulous public to swallow their absurd claims without question.

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology management and research staff will eventually claim that they were relying upon IPCC research. But as one of the Climategate conspirators, Tom Wigley, said in an email dated 25th November, 1997:

No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves.

On the subject of scientists not making statements unless they have examined the issue fully themselves, consider this one quoting Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett on 4th December, 2009:

The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Professor Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

The Chief Scientist’s statement is idiotic and patently false, more worthy of a Chief Shaman. There is no physical evidence anywhere on the planet that “disastrous global warming” will start by 2014, or any time at all. The position of Chief Scientist should be the last line of defence of the Australian public from the depredations of any rent-seekers and carpetbaggers. Instead she has joined the chorus that wants to condemn the Australian nation to penury. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have failed the Australian public dismally. That is putting it mildly. In truth, they have conspired against the Australian nation.

Professor Sackett’s most credible defence for making that idiotic statement might be that she has never associated with any climate scientists. Someone who did, Professor James Lovelock, is quoted by the Guardian newspaper on 29th March, 2010 as saying:

The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

Figure 72: Global Historical Climate Network raw and adjusted temperatures, Darwin Airport

Back on the subject of alarmist scientists fraudulently concocting data, Figure 72 above shows the manipulation applied to Darwin’s temperature record in order to manufacture a warming trend. The blue line is the original raw data which shows a significant cooling trend of 0.7°C per century. The red line is the adjusted data used to promote global warming alarmism. The black line shows the adjustment applied – a total of 2.2°C in sixty years! We can see that professionals did this job, because they added a little bit of cooling in the 1920s to make the uptrend seem more significant.

Read the full extract at Quadrant

Source: The Past and Future of Climate by David Archibald, with an introduction by David Bellamy

Buy The Past and Future of Climate here…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Why scientists get it wrong, 9.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/33oexc7

39 comments to Why scientists get it wrong

  • #
    Dave N

    These emails show that it’s not just a case of doing science and getting it wrong; they’re clearly attempting to pervert the course of whole-of-world climate policy, all with public money. May they receive all that they deserve.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Whatever their motivations or levels of understanding, we need to make it clear that the Warmists’ policies have very real and harmful impacts. When arable land is diverted to the growing of “eco-friendly” bio-crops, then starvation of the most vulnerable members of humanity is inevitable.

    I wish they’d consider this in their “precautionary principal” considerations.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    One of the biggest reasons so many scientists got this wrong is because it became a political issue. Political bias has a tendency to filter and blur the perception of even well meaning scientists. I think that it’s also the case that many people, including many scientists, want CAGW to be true, for a variety of self serving reasons. Certainly anyone with a green perspective would want CAGW to be true.

    CAGW became such a charged political issue because it neatly fit between a political right, often considered as driven by greed, and a political left, driven by guilt.

    George

    00

  • #
    Warren

    Oh rubbish,David…this is just the usual recycled drivel.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Those emails just devastate the AGW crowd every time…. They are an ugly insight into the corruption of good science. Indeed they show that no science is being done with taxpayers money…. Only politics.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Makes me wonder if there are ANY reliable surface temp records available, let alone original uncorrupted data. Are we really sure what the real temp is anymore? Apparently, this has been happening all over the world as “climate” study bodies jump on the bandwagon for cushy and well-paid jobs, corrupting data and selling scary stories to maintain, if not further their positions.

    I have heard that one country (the UK?) is trashing all adjusted and current data due to this scam and diligently working to recompile original records. At least it’s a start in the right direction, whereby hopefully the Rudd-y idiot and Penny Wrong will be ousted and jailed for blatant fraud (if at all possible).

    Where is that Penny Wrong anyway? She’s been conspicuously silent. Already in jail? Dear lord, please..

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    The fact that the IPCC scientists believed in the global warming they were promoting means that their morality at that level was better than expected, but it also means that they are a lot more stupid than expected.

    This is hardly surprising, most people would agree that scientists are intelligent but that does not preclude them from being idiots, even a genius can be an idiot. By and large the world is run for and by idiots; it is no great handicap in life and in certain areas it is actually a distinct advantage and even a prerequisite for advancement, Politics and Climate Science for instance.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    and anyone who uses the phrase “recycled drivel”,

    00

  • #
    Roger T Dodd

    Phil Jones on 5th July, 2005:
    This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    This email shows that one of the major IPCC authors held views in private that he dare not state publicly. Post Climategate, Phil Jones has stated that the world has not warmed for the last fifteen years

    I think you have to be more objective, and keep to genuinely incriminating emails, otherwise there is an easy response by the warmist camp. Jones is obviously correct – if you take as the starting point a huge positive El Nino blip in 1998, of course the scientific establishment would regard that as bogus. And his comment about no significant warming in the last 15 years is just a careful statement: because of the inherent variability of the temperature series to have statistically significant warming you need a pretty big increase. In fact the increase fell just short. This is very basic stats guys. You will lose if you try to fight on this battleground.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Warren:
    June 1st, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Oh rubbish,David…this is just the usual recycled drivel.

    All right Warren, If it’s drivel, take the time and make the effort to prove it. Just give us one example of empirical evidence, one will do, Andrew Glikson to his credit has made several post attempting to prove CAGW is happening, so far he has failed dismally, he to date has not found that one convincing piece of evidence. ,Instead of giving us glib one liners give us the evidence.,

    00

  • #

    The inner core is possibly twenty souls.
    You dropped a syllable at the end there, Jo…

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Allen McMahon @ 7

    “even a genius can be an idiot” which is why they are called “idiots savant”.

    Posted from Pardoo Station in the Pilbara

    00

  • #

    Climate science has been agenda driven – whether it be power or money or political persuasion (eco socialism) the science has been manipulated to achieve the desired outcome. To this extent those in positions of power have misled the public and squandered mammoth amounts of our funds in the process and all to leave us as unprepared as the can for what looks like the coming cold.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Roger @ 9

    Point taken. But it’s a pity that only us sceptics are required to provide statistical justifications. Whereas the Warmist camp (e.g. James Hansen, Al Gore) can throw numbers around with abandon and without question by the media.

    As Jo points out, the whole Alarmist case uses the temperature rise from the 1970′s as the basis for its “science”. The recent cooling is probably at least as signficant in duration. (And once the La Nina kicks in it will get very interesting.)

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Warren: #4
    June 1st, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Oh rubbish,David…this is just the usual recycled drivel.

    You mob keep telling us recycling rubbish is good.

    I love recycling these emails, over and over and over again. We’ll recycle them until you have regular nightmares about ‘em.

    The price of a recycled shopping bag?….$2
    The price of recycled East Anglia emails?…PRICELESS

    It’s people like you who provide oxygen to this scurrilous scam.

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    twawki said the scientists have left us unprepared ‘for what looks like the coming cold’. This is true, particularly in the northern hemisphere where Europe will experience cooler and wetter conditions for a decade or more.

    But we have more immediate problems in Oz, remember a cool PDO brings more La Nina and massive floods. The heavy rain over eastern Australia between late 1954 and the end of 1956, was dominated by La Niña conditions. The year 1956 was remarkable in that repeated flooding occurred throughout the vast Murray-Darling river system throughout the first half of the year.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    And his comment about no significant warming in the last 15 years is just a careful statement: because of the inherent variability of the temperature series to have statistically significant warming you need a pretty big increase. In fact the increase fell just short. This is very basic stats guys. You will lose if you try to fight on this battleground.

    Actually every year that goes past, the predicted disasters don’t happen and the IPCC plot of the warming that is supposed to occur gets more and more wrong.

    I think we will win, with the central limit theorem on our side and all :-)

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Baa Humbug @ 15

    I only wish I’d thought of this one! Truth and humour – a bloody potent weapon.

    Thanks.

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Hey El Gordo – agreed as Dorothea Mackellar said;

    I love a sunburnt country,
    A land of sweeping plains,
    Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains.
    I love her far horizons,
    I love her jewel-sea,
    Her beauty and her terror—
    The wide brown land for me!

    We get both extremes not because of AGW but because of natural historical climate cycles. If our governments had listened to history rather than fraudulent computer models they wouldn’t have built or be building desalination plants that will become basically useless. Already we are hearing in NSW that the desal plant may not be needed after all. I remember as a kid growing up in Sydney in the 60s and 70s the headlines about Warragamba Dam going to burst because of the floods and Richard and Windsor were frequently swamped.

    The floods you mentioned in the 50s also were indeed quite notable. St Albans – near Wisemans Ferry used to be part of the breadbowl of Sydney and the ships used to go up there as it had a port. However with the floods in the 50s so much sand was washed dumn the valley that the whole river filled up and is has been simply been a sandy creek bed.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    I’ve bought David’s book and look forward to hearing him in person.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    janama

    joanne – the link to Quadrant has one too many http:’s

    00

  • #
    Nick Mabbs

    More from climategate showing the ‘belief system’ at work.
    Spelling/grammar left as was.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: MBH
    Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
    Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    …………..Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the
    last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
    on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
    years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
    Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
    Cheers
    Phil

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Nick Mabbs:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 am
    More from climategate showing the ‘belief system’ at work.
    Spelling/grammar left as was.

    Nick Mabbs:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 am
    More from climategate showing the ‘belief system’ at work.
    Spelling/grammar left as was.

    LoL… If Phil Jones had used some available science, he would have realized that the “Gut feeling” he was having was simply Gas…. Embarrassing, but just gas…

    Because if he had checked the sediment cores from the South Western Baltic sea he would have found a semi tropical or temperate planktonic diatom that was present in sediments prior to 1360AD but absent afterwards, which shows that the Western Baltic must have been warmer before 1360 than it is today, because the sea temperature of the Western Baltic is too cold for that particular planktonic diatom and it doesn’t live there today….

    A good fart coulda saved Phil a lot of grief:-)

    00

  • #
    Richard111

    Will any of these clever scientists ever get round to explaining just how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
    Start simply by explaining the adiabatic lapse rate then add greenhouse gases of any quantity and explain how the temperature gradient up the atmosphere changes. Shouldn’t be difficult.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ken Stewart

    A great read- eventually we will win, but we need to keep chipping away with articles like this.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Nobody should be surprised by Penny Sackett’s statements. After all, the position of Chief Scientist is by definition a political appointment. Sad to see that the Province of Ontario in Canada, run by AGW True Believers as it is, has announced the creation of a Chief Scientist position for the province. I expect this position to be filled by a “climate scientist” to promote the official party line.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    @ Roger in 9,

    Your post reminded me of a funny saying about stats.

    Are you using stats as a lamp post you can lean on for support of for illumination?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Speedy: #14

    … once the La Nina kicks in it will get very interesting

    You know, I often wondered why there was no talk of El Nino and La Nina in the alarmist camp, surely climate scientists would know about them, and factor these things into their models, I thought.

    And then I thought, but they are primarily a southern hemisphere phenomenon, so perhaps they don’t matter.

    And then it occurred to me that the northern hemisphere and southern hemispheres have somewhat disjoint weather systems, so I wondered how come we could have an average global temperature anomaly? Surely we should have two. But the seasons are offset by about six months, so what does “average” mean?

    An then the 17 Watt ecobulb in my head finally came up to full brightness, and I realised that they did know about La Nina, and they did realise that the trend they were attempting to plot (and fudge) was a cyclic one, and that the up-turn would would turn into a down-turn, and that the wheels would fall off eventually.

    They just gambled that the whole thing could be done and dusted before anybody noticed!

    Well, they lost, we won, how sad.

    It is still amusing (to me at least) that the odd troll or two, and the other fellow-travellers, still don’t don’t understand what has happened. They just don’t see that they were conned as well. They don’t see all of the levels of deception between the grass-roots “green” movements and the self-appointed elite who are pulling all of the strings.

    Perhaps we don’t see them all either.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #15

    It’s people like you who provide oxygen to this scurrilous scam.

    No, it is people like them who are stealing my oxygen.

    00

  • #
    MDM

    Nevertheless, their behaviour in promoting the notion of global warming using fraudulent statistics is reprehensible and hopefully they will be duly punished in this world or the next.

    Statements such as the above quoted belong in Eschenbach’s list in the recent post “Throwing the Hate Crime Grenade.”

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    In the same vein, further from Kevin Trenberth on 14th October, 2009:

    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

    We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

    ——————————————-

    These emails were in response to an email about Paul Hudson (BBC), writing that article: Whatever Happened to Global Warming.(
    Oct 2009 , just 2 months before Copenhagen, so I imagine, the various ‘teams’ were very sensitive, to any lack of warming)

    And Michael Mann, said

    “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
    can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
    the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

    Many wondered on seeing this, if sceptical voices would have similar access to the BBC.

    00

  • #

    [...] Via joannenova. com. au [...]

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    for temperature enthusiasts Ken Stewart has completed The Australian Temperature Record: Part 2- Northern Territory which follows on from his raw data analysis of Queensland; check it out at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

    Ken’s second para of Part 1 says ‘Until about a month ago, I thought that the analysis of climate change in Australia, and information given to the public and the government, was based on the raw temperature data.

    I was wrong.

    » It is based on data that has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
    » It makes no allowance for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
    » The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
    » In Queensland, it produces a trend in mean temperatures that is nearly 0.2 degrees Celsius greater than the raw data does.
    » It does NOT give an accurate record of Queensland temperatures over the last 100 years.

    His conclusion from Part 1 The High Quality data for Queensland shows a warming bias of nearly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 100 years. Comparison of the HQ data for these sites with the raw data shows unexplained inconsistencies in a number of cases. Leaving out the adjustments of the sites with the most glaring inconsistencies brings the average HQ trend back to the raw data trend of about 0.8 degrees C /100 years. Furthermore, it is based on data that has been subjectively and manually adjusted, and it makes no allowance for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

    As to Part 2 (NT) his conclusion is The climate record for the Northern Territory is based on very limited data. Very few stations have long records, much data is missing, and the Trend Maps and Time Series Graphs thus depend on only two sites. Both of them showed about 1 degree of warming, but Alice Springs has been manually adjusted to give extra warming which cannot be justified. Similarly, Darwin’s extra warming (though not used in the record) cannot be justified.

    Hope you have time to check out his site and to leave a comment; he hopes to have WA available in a couple of days

    00

  • #
    john of sunbury

    Rather than the ‘WHY’ of so many scientists getting it wrong, the extract seems to be more about the ‘HOW’. How they manipulated and mislead us. The ‘why’ is all about the money and status (as Jo has shown so clearly in the past); or rather the political agenda that provides the money and status.

    CAGW is a perfect vehicle for political movements with aspirations of (pick your favorite) … funding ‘big’ government … a socialist or totalitarian state …. redistributing wealth … destroying capitalism ….world government …. destroying the West …. or even just reigning in an out of control deficit.

    It is perfect because if you can convince the people that what you are doing is for their own good (better still, for their survival), they will put up with just about any impost on their rights or freedoms … and be grateful for it.

    It is perfect because you can put your hand into the pockets of industry (or just about anyone) and justify it as punishing the ‘evil’ polluters. You can create punitive new taxes under the noble guise of saving the planet.

    The best part of all is that the whole scam is untestable. If there is a modest amount of warming you claim success for averting the catastrophe; if there is none, you are a hero.

    You can see why this beast is so hard to kill.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    An then the 17 Watt ecobulb in my head finally came up to full brightness, and I realised that they did know about La Nina, and they did realise that the trend they were attempting to plot (and fudge) was a cyclic one, and that the up-turn would would turn into a down-turn, and that the wheels would fall off eventually.

    They just gambled that the whole thing could be done and dusted before anybody noticed!

    You are completely correct. I think I mentioned this on Jo’s blog about a year ago and I have no doubt that others woke up earlier than I did. Copenhagen was the “crux” of the matter and the CRU email release happened at a very key time. We will probably never know exactly who and why.

    Well, they lost, we won, how sad.

    Having tried to cheat once, they undoubtedly will try again and may have a viable backup plan. Don’t underestimate the danger of desperate people risking loss of their sense of self importance. The good thing is, any delay from here on falls in our favour as the end of the world stubbornly fails to materialise.

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    HI, john of sunbury. You are spot on.

    The AGW is 100% social/political. I was watching a show
    on ABC (Australia) for Banledesh and was amazed by the
    markets variety of food. Now according to IPCC Banledesh will be flooded.

    Well it is now, it is 75% flooded each year, that is beneficial to their economy. It brings in silt and also
    fish they prey on.

    Prior to 10,000 years ago, Northern Australia was not subjected to Monsoons. They were connected by a land bridge to New Guinea. However, the climate change gave
    Australian Aborigines more options for their hunter and gatherer and fisher existence. They adapted.

    Climate change for the Northern Hemisphere was beneficial
    however, the mini ice age following the medieval warm
    period had lesser benefits and when the climate globally
    swings back towards a full glacial period the Northern Hemisphere will become possibly in 1000 years almost inhabitable. Like it was 10,000 years ago.

    This globe will provide food and benefits for all living organisms. But if the demography of human occupation exceeds what that area can support for food we will
    not survive in the long run. Of course with trade other
    areas can benefit from others production.

    But the Northern Hemisphere will be the ones who have
    or will become more dependent on the Southern Hemisphere.
    Don’t you think politicians and economists aren’t aware of this?

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    Just as a follow up. During the 1970s Stephen Schneider
    who was screaming ‘The Next Ice Age commeth’ (available on
    U Tube) He and James Hansen were the chief advisers to Al Gore for his ‘Inconvenient Truth’ shit, that won him a nobel prize and Academy Award and Emmi award.

    How come Stephen’s opinion in the 1970s became nasty politically in the 2005s.

    Does the global climate change that quickly. Absolutely
    NOT!

    00

  • #
    Howard

    Look. I and I believe few others really know if David’s book is wholly reliable or not. But thank God someone is breaking ranks from the lock step cowardice of the Holy ‘Consensus’ on AGW.
    The whole AGW hysteria is a study in human frailty and human psychology. It demonstrates how scientists are human to their core and are, sadly, just as susceptible to crowd behaviour and self delusion as the rest of us. The history of science is littered with scientists who develop a ‘pet’ theory and then ‘adopt’ it in a deep subconscious way such that they are then wholly unable to change their mind irrespective of the weakness of their data. What has happened here is that a group of these scientists formed an initial clique, ‘shaped’ the data to suit the theory and sold the theory as one that is intensely attractive as a scientific marriage to the wider Green movement of fighting pollution and deforestation and fossil fuel usage. So they managed to fuse AGW into this new Green Movement to create THE PERFECT STORM against the baddy industrialists.
    They managed to create a momentum behind their theories and through a mind-meld with Al Gore they were adopted by the policially correct core of the world wide Green Movement and the UN, both of whom saw the astonishing convenience of the theories and the power of them if they allied them with the war on pollution/deforestation/fossil fuel.

    So we are now stuck with this Behemoth straddling the Scientific world where the data has been completely subverted and relegated to a minor role because the reputations of so many heavy hitting scientists is on the line. No one is breaking ranks because they have too much to lose. Personal reputation. Billions of dollars in grants. University status. Embarrassment. Careers!

    Books and post doc studies by the thousands will be written on this appalling fiasco in future years.

    00