JoNova

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



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



BOM, GISS have record setting bugs affecting a million square miles?

How bad are these datasets? How sloppy are the data records?


Western Australia (WA) covers 2.5 million square kilometers (1 million square miles, about a third as big as the USA). The average of all WA stations over one month last year was adjusted up by as much as a gobsmacking 0.5 degrees due to a database “bug” – which contributed to August 2009 being the hottest August on record?! That’s one heck of a bug!

Could it get worse? Unbelievably, GISS seems to have lost data for key WA locations that an unpaid volunteer found easily in the BoM online records. GISS only has to maintain copies of records for sixteen stations in WA* which have temperatures current to 2010, but in seven of them they are missing data, and it affects the results. Are they random errors? No, shock me, six errors are upwards: in one case making the spring 2009 average temperatures for Kalgoorlie-Boulder 1.1 C degrees warmer!

But with no-one auditing our BoM or NASA’s GISS, and no team jointly receiving raw data or regulating standards in either agency, temperatures recorded in the field could potentially be listed in official records as being quite different, and who would know? It’s left up to volunteers like Chris Gillham, a freelance journalist and web designer in Perth, to run a sharp eye over the data. Chris has been tracking WA data for the last two years and his site, Average Temperature Trends Across Western Australia, has methodically, neatly exposed some major flaws.

Just how much can we trust any of the pronouncements coming out, and how significant are any of the “records”, even if the adjustments are fair, unbiased and justified? The whole database is surely not “high quality” when bugs of that magnitude are running rampant and data goes missing that professionals can’t find, but people who are not “paid to find warming” dig up without much trouble.

–JN

New questions about reliability of GISS and BoM data

Guest Post by Chris Gillham

Fresh doubts have emerged about the reliability of temperatures within the Goddard Institute of Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis database with revelations that missing data errors have appeared for various months in the 2009 records of Australian locations, even though the correct mean temperatures are available from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).

In turn, the BoM data itself has seen adjustments that might leave researchers wondering about claims that Australia has suffered record high temperatures over the past 12 months.

Western Australia (for scale, it's about 600 km from Perth to Kalgoorlie). Showing some of the sites.

A BoM database bug: Oops, half a degree?

On September 1 last year, the BoM posted mean min and max temperatures on its website for the month of August 2009 at all its recording stations in Western Australia (2.5 million square kilometres).

However, on November 17 the mean temperatures for all WA recording stations were adjusted upward by as much as .5 C for August 2009.

When questioned about the adjustments, the BoM confirmed it had suffered a database bug and the upward shift was a consequent correction for August 2009, which the bureau says was the hottest August ever recorded in Australia.

GISS is “missing”data

The GISS database shows that in the following month, September 2009, there is missing data (999.9) at three Western Australia recording stations:

Esperance | Kalgoorlie-Boulder | Perth Airport

Despite the missing September data and as is evident in their tables, GISS has calculated the Spring (S-O-N) mean temperatures at those three locations as 17.5 C, 20.5 C and 17.7 C respectively.

Trouble is, the data isn’t “missing”. A quick search of the BoM website reveals the September 2009 mean temperatures were:

13.2 C at Esperance

13.9 C at Kalgoorlie-Boulder

13.9 C at Perth Airport

This in turn means the Spring mean temperatures were actually 16.6 C at Esperance (not 17.5 C), 19.4 C at Kalgoorlie-Boulder (not 20.5 C) and 17.2 at Perth Airport (not 17.7 C).

The GISS database records for Eucla show missing data for December 2009, but the BoM records once again are available and show the mean temperature was in fact 21.6 during that month. The GISS has calculated the Summer 2009/10 (D-J-F) mean at Eucla as 22.8 C, but with the accurate BoM December data included it turns out to be 22.7 C.

Based on evidence available from the GISS and the BoM websites, it appears several WA locations with records current to 2010 have small to significant upward data adjustments.

Wait, there’s more!

I’ve detailed the BoM bug adjustments and the GISS missing data adjustments.

While researching the GISS adjustments, I noticed yet another odd data shift that left me wondering about the reliability of temperature recordings. I had listed the 2009 monthly mean temperatures on October 4, 2010, for Kalgoorlie-Boulder, but when I returned to the GISS website database the following day, October 5, I found that every month in 2009 for that location had been shifted up by .1 C.

This means the newly adjusted GISS record shows Kalgoorlie-Boulder’s average mean for Spring 2009 was 20.6C, not 20.5 C anymore, so this historic mining town’s seasonal temperature record is now 1.2 degrees higher than the reality of the BoM records.

These inexplicable adjustments to domestic and international datasets raise questions about the reliability of record temperatures reported in Australia over the past year and the reliability of official records used by researchers to try to accurately gauge temperature trends.

**UPDATE (Erratum): Text has been slightly altered to reflect new information. Hours after the post was put up, it was discovered that GISS maintains records for sixteen sites around WA, not just five, but in at least three other sites there is also missing data (Port Hedland, Albany, and Geraldton) making it at least 6 of 16 sites where data is missing even though it is readily available, and in the case of Albany, there are holes in the data, but the raw data for times prior to September 2009 is no longer available on the BOM website. Apologies for the error.

UPDATE 2: Geraldton and Port Hedland mistakes are also “upwards”

The Geraldton Airport GISS data shows missing temperature for April 2010 but the BoM data at for April 2010 shows the mean at 20.95, which means the Autumn 2010 M-A-M is 21.3 C, not 21.5 C as calculated by GISS.
The Port Hedland GISS data shows missing temperature for May 2010 but the BoM data at for May 2010 shows the mean at 25.2, which means the Autumn 2010 M-A-M is 29 C, not 29.1 C as calculated by GISS.


Other Notes

Climate Fools Day is on today!

See Carbon Sense Coalition for information on events at The UK House of Commons The event at 2pm includes Christopher Booker: “The most expensive Bill in History”, Piers Corbyn: “Successfully predicting extreme weather events” and the Revd Philip Foster.

Julie Bishop’s poll: Do you want a carbon tax?

She’s running a poll on her site. If you think a carbon tax is a noxious waste of time, it only takes a second to click…

Image adapted from the Map on Australiaforall – tourism information for disabled travelers.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
BOM, GISS have record setting bugs affecting a million square miles?, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2g34uzm

128 comments to BOM, GISS have record setting bugs affecting a million square miles?

  • #
    PJB

    Perhaps the S for Space in GISS refers to the gaps in their records?

    The more you look, the more you see, and the less you like…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Well spotted Chris…. It’s starting to become common practice with the AGW proponents to keep stuffing up their data and adjustments… While the media, politicians and leftist academia keep making excuses for them or ignoring it all together….. after all, “the debate” is over… isn’t it?

    If it wasn’t for guys like Chris Gillham, these made up temperature data bases would have the poor Earth warming by God knows what temperature…. Hell, just think of a number an’ double it… At least by that much.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I was amazed to read that their work at GISS is unaudited. Its as if the foxes were guarding the henhouse! How can anyone with an open mind trust data that is almost always adjusted to show that the earlier years were cooler and recent years were warmer? Assuming mistakes were made that required adjustment the average should be close to 50% either way. If I am gambling and we are flipping a quarter a thousand times and 990 times the quarter lands heads up I am going to check and see if the quarter has been weighted to intentionally do so. However, when it comes to climate science these fraudsters get a free pass!

    Maybe we should end the CAGW scam by sending all the climate scientists behind this fraud to Las Vegas? If they stay true to form they will get caught playing with loaded dice, get taken for a ride into the desert and never be hears from again! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hmmm. Magical words haven’t worked. Now it appears that both ignoring actual measurements and making up numbers won’t work either. What will they do next to create the catastrophe they want so much. Stick pins in rag dolls? Dance naked around fires in the forest? Cast spells in an attempt to call the demons of hell to do their bidding?

    Pathetic!

    Imagine what could have been accomplished if the 80 billion this 30 year charade has cost had been left in the pockets of the people who actually earned it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Didn’t I read some place that BoM audited NIWA & NIWA lost in court.

    Perhaps if the NZ taxpayers go in hard, BoM will have to stand in the dock too.

    Their teflon coating may be found lacking across the ditch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike S.

    What will they do next … Dance naked around fires in the forest?

    Ye gads, I hope not. Or at least, if they do, that no one takes any pictures. Some things can’t be unseen…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    Julie Bishop’s poll on carbon tax – so far ‘Strongly Support’ votes outnumber ‘Strongly Oppose’ votes almost 2:1. C’mon guys – click that oppose button!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Well done Chris.

    pattoh # 5.
    The court case involving NIWA in NZ has not taken place yet. What is happening is NIWA is “building” a new temp. data set that will be “independently” reviewed by BoM in Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Congratulations Chris- the truth will out! You’ve done a great job exposing this. Your persistence is inspiring.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and yet…

    27 Oct: Daily Telegraph: Gemma Jones: Climate change film An Inconvenient Truth for Australian schools
    Education ministers agreed two years ago a “focus on environmental sustainability would be integrated across the curriculum”.
    As a result of the agreement, the national curriculum which is due to be finished in December, will contain lessons on climate change and sustainability across English, maths, science and even history.
    Under a draft modern history curriculum, there would be lessons on environmental history so “students come to appreciate the demographic and environmental consequences of growth”.
    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
    .End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
    In biology, students would learn about “sustainability as a social and environmental issue” and “the effects of climate change”.
    “There is a place for environmental sustainability in the curriculum, just not in the history section,” Opposition education spokesman Adrian Piccoli said…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/climate-change-film-for-schools/story-e6freuzr-1225943893760

    surely something needs to be done to stop this brainwashing of the young.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    Just a taxpayer here, but this is the stuff that drives me nutty. Government employees that just change data. No explanation (that makes sense) and no accountability to anyone. I’m up in Canada but I sure as hell hope the GOP wins big time next week and Inholf gets a chance to grill these commie b@$!@#ds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    How beautiful. And just in time for Cancun.

    Here in Germany, the good people at EIKE have just found two papers from 2003 from our current top alarmists Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf where they a) find no warming in 95 stations b) create a beautiful palaeoclimatological history that shows the current warming as a rather small blip, compared to the MWP, the Roman Climate Optimum and the Optimum of the Holozene.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/

    I think the rats will leave the sinking ship in droves very soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Mike Jowsey:
    October 27th, 2010 at 5:23 am
    I “Stronly” oppose
    Suppose parasites will use that as justification for “Consensus building” or some other expensive burden on us.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    August last year doesn’t stand in my memory as especially warm. September, however, was possibly the WETTEST on record. 23 days in a row with rain. For my workplace that translated into considerable amounts of idle time.
    Never did hear the warmists’ opinion about that long wet spell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    charlesd

    Let’s hope that one day these people will run out of ways to fudge the data. If the real warming is indeed less than the claimed warming, then eventually the two will diverge so much that they will not be able to keep up the pretense. Global warming over the last decade has been rather mild, so maybe they are already running out of fudge.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    Hi Pat

    I agree How stupid is that idea after its been shown years ago to be full of lies in a court of law. Add to that the most recent studies and it is a complete work of science fiction.

    There really needs to be a court case here in Aus to show that its not fit for any school room except classes on how to film propaganda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wilko

    If you read the full article it’s clear that the ACA does not intend on making The Inconvenient Truth a required text but their agenda is laid bare. I believe something like this was successfully challenged in the Uk, correct?

    http://www.news.com.au/features/environment/climate-film-will-be-an-inconvenient-truth-for-schools/story-e6frflp0-1225943986661

    Of course, it would provide a great opportunity for the right students to tear it to shreds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Bit of a mixed bag here:

    Excellent work Chris. The BoM’s high quality data isn’t even consistent within itself.

    September 2010 was the coldest September since 1992 for much of south eastern Australia and in Adelaide, for the first time in recorded history, the temperature did not rise above 70 degrees F (21.1C) in September.

    This comment belongs more to the previous topic, but I think it’s very relevent that we haven’t seen
    the sequel: “An Inconvenient Truth II”.

    Julie Bishop’s poll: it doesn’t seem to be registering votes any more. In any case, not much can be gleaned from a poll run by a politician. She can’t even get the spelling right! It’s very polarised towards the “strongly” options – the Greens obviously sent their people to vote there and now the dedicated sceptics are having a go. In other words it’s hardly representative of how a random sample of the population would vote.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    william gray

    We need a royal commision.
    Or at least some brave scientist to do a published response too-

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

    http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/01/australias-temperature-stations.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Pat @10:
    You’re right. And here is an item to go out in every Queensland state school newsletter this week…

    (From Schools Update 25/10/10) http://oneportal.deta.qld.gov.au/News/SchoolUpdate/2010/Documents/OneMillionWomenWantedToHelpFightClimateChange.DOC

    One million women wanted to help fight climate change

    Mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers are encouraged to do their bit to fight climate change by joining the 1 Million Women campaign.

    The campaign hopes to inspire one million women to commit to reducing their personal carbon emissions by one tonne in a year, just by making some small lifestyle changes.

    Pledge online at http://www.1millionwomen.com.au to find a number of activities to cut your carbon footprint when you’re at home, shopping, eating or travelling.

    There are more than 50 carbon-saving activities to choose from.

    For example, did you realise that by simply cutting out one red meat meal a week you can save almost 195kg of carbon dioxide (C02), the main greenhouse gas pollutant, and almost 10 000 litres of water in a year?

    Join the thousands of Australian women already making a difference and register today.

    For more information visit http://www.1millionwomen.com.au

    The one about cutting out red meat should go down real well in many rural households!

    The fight is far from over.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Why is it that the contemporary temperature records are almost always “adjusted” upwards, whereas the historical ones are almost always “adjusted” downwards?

    I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Speedy:
    October 27th, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Why is it that the contemporary temperature records are almost always “adjusted” upwards, whereas the historical ones are almost always “adjusted” downwards?

    Because the weather won’t conform to the model’s forecasts! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    SUBJECT: Today is Climate Fools Day

    Statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

    Today, 27th October 2010, is Climate Fools Day.

    For the last 20 years politicians, jets setting bureaucrats and vested interests have been plotting how to make Climate Fools of the western world, taxing industry and consumers to fund green schemes, carbon speculators and international wealth redistribution.

    The fightback by sceptical scientists and public was greatly boosted on the first Climate Fools Day when, in October 2008, British politicians passed with little dissent “The Climate Change Bill” a piece of legislation that future generations will come to accept was “the most absurd Bill that this Parliament has ever had to examine”.

    Since then, sceptics all over the world have exposed the lack of evidence, the manipulation of data, the misuse of scientific process, the corruption of vested interests and the powerful influence of natural factors in climate cycles.

    Despite the now discredited projections of dangerous global warming, the globe itself has continued its normal weather defining cycles such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Oscillations, the powerful solar cycles and the massive ebb and flow of oceans and atmosphere. On a longer time scale there is no evidence that the globe’s long history of recurrent ice ages and violent episodes of volcanic and earthquake activity have suddenly ceased.

    Unfortunately, a whole generation of Climate Fools will have to be rooted out of our parliaments before Climate Sense reigns again. We will then see the massive flood of community resources currently being wasted on windmills, solar toys, alarmist junkets, silly subsidies and climate bureaucracy will be more sensibly directed towards preparation for coping with the real natural cycles of heat and cold, floods and droughts, cyclones and earthquakes, vulcanism and ice ages. We will then regret the destruction of industry and wastage of real energy opportunities now taking place.

    Climate Fools Day will be celebrated today by organised meetings of sceptics in Westminster and Brisbane.

    Brisbane: King George Square 12 noon. More info contact Tim Wells: timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk

    PS for more information on Climate Fools Day see:

    http://climatefoolsday.com/

    And on the activities in Westminster:

    Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk:-

    (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AC

    As an ex-AGW believer, I can say that the very thing that alerted me to the whole business was a section at the back of D’Aleo and Watt’s (2009?) paper – the section entitled “Case study 12: ‘Show this to Jim then hide it’” I seem to remember one email exchange to the database manager from “Jim” (and I paraphrase a bit). “Do you think we ought to keep a back up of the original data in the future?” It was the clean implication from these exposed emails that it was standard practice for “Jim” (James Hansen of GISS) to alter the temperature “raw data” without documentation or without keeping the original- and yet still calling it “raw data”. This seemed to me to be the most outrageous abuse of science. It meant that one could not have any confidence in any of their temperature data since there was no way of knowing just what they had done to it or why. I urge anyone who believes anything that comes out of GISS has credibility, to track down the D’Aleo and Watts paper and have a look at it themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy @ 21

    Are you suggesting that Mother Nature isn’t a Believer??! :)

    If so, all our local Greenies should now get stuck into Mother Nature, and declare her a HERITIC, SKEPTIC and a DENIER!

    If Judith Curry gets crucified for asking awkward questions, what will they do to Mother Nature for giving awkward answers?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Speedy 24

    I think the little dutch climate scientist has taken his finger out of the dyke of disinformation and all hell is going to break loose while (whilst?) the climate scam artists try getting to high ground! I wonder who will drive the bus over everyone else as an act of self preservation? Beware of climate scientists wearing greyhound bus driver’s caps! This should get interesting!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    total denier

    Well done Chris – but this is just the tip of the BOM/AGW iceberg in Australia.

    The fabrication of the modern temperature record in NZ by NIWA – such that the official record bears little resemblance to the measured values – has its roots in temperature corrections that can no longer be found, let alone justified.

    Here in Australia the same process is at work – and guess what – both NIWA and BOM ‘check’ each others work (peer review???) and both have obtained correction algorithms from CRU in East Anglia.

    With green zealots in both organisations, and without independent auditing, the results are highly suspect. Its a pity that both the Australian and New Zealand governments rely totally on this data without question.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy

    All Judith Curry is doing is asking people to be honest – what’s wrong with that? Unless you’re a crook, of course…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    There’s along way to go in Australia. I see on Andrew Bolt’s blog that Gore’s film “An Incovenient Truth” can be used as part of the school curriculum now !!!! Time for a revolt by Aussie parents.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Ross @ 29:
    Here in the Midwest USA my 15 year old son just completed a science section on “sustainability” which included the gore film.

    He was however well prepared to talk back when necessary. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Please Help Stop An Inconvenient Truth being shown in Australian Schools

    The Sydney Morning Herald is running a poll about showing An Inconvenient Truth in Australian schools.

    We need as many NO! votes as possible.

    See link below to poll.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/mps-divided-on-educational-value-of-an-inconvenient-truth-20101027-17326.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Any danger of the Aussie newspapers doing a New Zealand style headline? I was thinking along the line of…..

    New Zealand’s Australian government now says its New Zealand Australian Temperature Record is unofficial and exists solely for internal research purposes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    isn’t this an odd venue for Gore to be spouting this nonsense?

    20 Oct: DNA, India: Over 90 nations recorded all time high temp this year: Al Gore
    He was delivering the key thematic oration titled ‘Thinking Green’ during the inauguration of 20th World Congress of the World Society of Cardio Thoracic Surgeons…
    “In Pakistan during May 53.5 degree C was recorded, which is the hottest temperature ever measured in Asia”, he said.
    Al Gore said Pakistan also witnessed the highest ever heavy downpour this year with unprecedented deforestation.
    He said Russia witnessed highest temperature this year. “Russian temperature reached as high as 40 degree C on many days this year”, he said…
    http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_over-90-nations-recorded-all-time-high-temp-this-year-al-gore_1455685

    tragic!

    26 Oct: Marketwatch: Former Vice President Al Gore Hosts Time Warner Cable’s Global Online Town Hall on Student Attitudes toward Math and Science Education
    This unique event is part of Connect a Million Minds (CAMM), TWC’s philanthropic commitment to connect youth to ideas, people and opportunities that will inspire them to pursue education and careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)…
    “In today’s increasingly global economy, America cannot afford to continue to fall behind the world in the very subjects that are going to drive economic growth and development in the coming decades,” said Gore, who is appearing courtesy of Current TV, where he serves as Chairman. “By creating a dialogue that includes not only experts on the subject matter, but the kids who are ultimately affected by this issue, Time Warner Cable’s Global Online Town Hall is likely to provide tremendous insights into the issue and provide a jumping off point for action.” …
    About Connect a Million Minds
    Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) Connect a Million Minds (CAMM) is a five-year, $100 million philanthropic initiative to address America’s declining proficiency in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), which puts our children at risk of not competing successfully in a global economy…
    TWC’s national CAMM partners are CSAS (Coalition for Science After School) and FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). Local TWC markets are activating CAMM across the country with community-specific programs and partnerships.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/former-vice-president-al-gore-hosts-time-warner-cables-global-online-town-hall-on-student-attitudes-toward-math-and-science-education-2010-10-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Entrusting the global surface records to acknowledged rabid CAGW activist Hansen is laughably naive.
    It’s not as if he became so after collecting and analyzing the data.
    He has manufactured the data to conform to his preconceived notion — that’s clear from his professional history.
    ========================================
    I’ve a few suggestions for the 1millionwomen (20):
    # a low-carbon wardrobe is a small wardrobe.
    # buy second-hand.
    # hand-powered laundry machine + mangle eliminating tumble drying.
    # make your own beauty products, apricot kernel oil or almond oil make great facial cleansers (wiped off with an organic muslin cloth of course), make a fabulous lip tint with beetroot juice, beeswax, almond oil soap made with olive oil and sodium hydroxide makes a great shampoo and shower gel.

    Great ideas that will be enthusiastically adopted by ‘Ambassadors’ like Katie Noonan, Anna Bligh and Tanya Plibersek, I’m sure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Another example of Policy-based evidence. Whereas what we really need is Evidence-based policy…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chris phoned me rather mortified this morning that he’d done a triple check late last night and discovered that Giss cover 16 sites, not just 5. (Not that that changes any of the big questions we raised.) I’ve made adjustments to the post, and we updated the numbers as fast as possible. Within a few hours he was able to check those other sites and show that at least three of them have missing data as well. If he can find missing data and the correct results so quickly, why can’t the entire Goddard Institute of “Space” Studies get it right?

    **UPDATE (Erratum): Text has been slightly altered to reflect new information. Hours after the post was put up, it was discovered that GISS maintains records for sixteen sites around WA, not just five, but in at least three other sites there is also missing data (Port Hedland, Albany, and Geraldton) making it at least 6 of 16 sites where data is missing even though it is readily available, and in the case of Albany, there are holes in the data, but the raw data for times prior to September 2009 is no longer available on the BOM website. Apologies for the error.

    UPDATE 2: Geraldton and Port Hedland mistakes are also “upwards”

    The Geraldton Airport GISS data shows missing temperature for April 2010 but the BoM data at for April 2010 shows the mean at 20.95, which means the Autumn 2010 M-A-M is 21.3 C, not 21.5 C as calculated by GISS.

    The Port Hedland GISS data shows missing temperature for May 2010 but the BoM data at for May 2010 shows the mean at 25.2, which means the Autumn 2010 M-A-M is 29 C, not 29.1 C as calculated by GISS.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Apologies OT.

    The NSW gov just cut the feed-in tariff to 20c/kWh from 60c. See my blog post here.

    The net effect of this is that the point at which you break even on your investment is pushed back by roughly 3 times as long.

    Funny thing is I was just checking out if I should go solar or not; now this confirms that I should wait a little longer until the underlying panels get efficient enough to make it really viable without excessive free market fiddling. Whats to stop the government wiping out any feed-in tariff benefits further down the track… nothing..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Keith #37

    Like you, I was contemplating a similar move. Not anymore though.

    Governments simply can’t be trusted to do the right thing by the citizens. You just know they will renege at the first sign of financial pressure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    How ironic. A post all about other people making mistakes ends up being one big mistake itself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    @7
    That poll seems to be cooked to show a preference towards a carbon tax.
    I mean Julie Bishop surely opposes a carbon tax right?
    So there’s something fishy going on here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Twinkler

    When you make a mistake, you fix it. That’s good science. When do you think the GISS will fix up the errors in their database?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I notice Ken Stewart has made a comment above but for those of you who do not know:
    Ken Stewart has done some great work; what he believes is the first ever independent check on the official climate record of Australia. It is also the first ever independent check on the official record of an entire continent.
    check out
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-australian-temperature-re cord-part-9-an-urban-myth/
    and check out the link to part 8,
    his conclusion:
    One thing we do know:- the High Quality data does NOT give an accurate record of urban Australian temperatures over the last 100 years. BOM’s reconstruction of the temperature record is at best a guess. High Quality is an urban myth.
    Conclusion

    This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based. Problems with the High Quality data include:

    » It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
    » The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
    » Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
    » Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
    » The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
    » The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
    » The warming bias in the temperature trend is over 40%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
    » The trend published by BOM is 66.67% greater than that of the raw data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Re 34manalive:
    October 27th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    A great opening here to invent the solar clothes drier – should be a hit (sarc off)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    We have a thumbs-down drone on the comment stream.

    I hope the little “darling” goes to bed soon … his/her/its thumb must need a good suck by now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Orkneygal

    Does this mean that it is worse than we thought?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Julie Bishop’s poll question should have been something like:

    Would you pay a dollar an hour for the rest of your life to perhaps reduce the world warming by 0.01°C in a hundred years?

    That’s approximately the price of “carbon”, derived from per capita energy consumption as energy, goods and services and the price that the rent-seekers would like to set per tonne of CO2 (about $50). If one looks only at the direct energy costs, then it’s about a dollar per hour, per household.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    My Goodness! Somebody is upset! So what is the greater wrong – that a supposedly trusted body of public “servants” are misrepresenting the climate history to the public? Or that someone finds out about it? Take your pick. And explain why.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Val @ 42

    You mention the so-called High Quality data presented by the BOM. How do they justify this moniker? I am reminded of the phrase – “self praise is no commendation.”

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Something strange is happening to the comment recommendation system today. The number of “don’t like” clicks is abnormally high, including for those commentators who never (or very rarely) get negative “likes”. I feel that you have been discovered Jo, and the “warmists” are out to get you.

    Well done!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Richard

    Maybe she’s struck a raw nerve? Al Gore didn’t come out yesterday looking at all good. And none of the regular trolls could defend him, even on request/challenge. (Please feel free to do so now, BTW, if any trolls feel like it!) The man’s a crook, and Jo just nailed him. Sorry, guys. Truth hurts – for you.

    I wonder if anyone will tell us when the GISS will provide a clear and transparent set of data explaining the rationale behind their “homogenized” data? Not holding my breath, but.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard: The number of “don’t like” clicks is abnormally high…

    It’s the digital equivalent of sticking pins in rag dolls.

    By doing that, they are continuing their failed argument by consensus. They know it failed but they are so bereft of imagination and so cowardly that all they can do is to continue to do the same thing anonymously.

    It’s beyond pathetic and approaching absurdity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    Perhaps someone at BoM could grace us with a detailed explanation of how these databases run a fever when they’ve got a bug.
    In this case the Gillham Vaccine and a bit of Blogsphere seems to be working a treat if the 900 or so +ve & -ve ticks are anything to go by.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A lullaby for Twinkler! Sleep, Twinkler, sleep!

    Twinkler, Twinkler little troll
    Always trying to be droll
    Reasoning fallaciously
    About things that cannot be
    Twinkler, Twinkler little troll
    Always trying to be droll
    Never saying something nice
    Always giving bad advice
    Maybe next time you’ll think twice
    Twinkler, Twinkler little troll
    Always trying to be droll
    Never posting sincerely
    Cannot reason logically
    If you could that would be great
    I guess we’ll have to hope and wait
    Twinkler, Twinkler little troll
    Always trying to be droll


    Report this

    00

  • #
    tsunami

    I suspect the thumbs down numbers are skewed by one troll clicking using multiple accounts to vote. That may be how the Bishop poll is so skewed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Richard/Speedy it is probably one of the “vote early & vote often” types that has paid a few visits to Julie Bishop’s page.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Eddy: #53

    That was very good … you have hidden depths, man.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Rereke Whaakaro:
    October 28th, 2010 at 5:23 am
    Eddy: #53

    That was very good … you have hidden depths, man.

    Thanks, if some of the trolls had their way instead of having “hidden depths” I would be hidden in the depths! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Mark @38

    My apologies Mark, I went to give a thumbs down to TWinkler @ 39 but got you instead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bob:

    Hardly a problem mate, looks like TWonk(ler) and his fellow twonks have been very busy.with that button lately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Twinkler
    We’ll all understand when your posts stop here….. -
    You got a Girlfriend!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Reported this before, but it’s worth repeating here.

    My area’s minimum for Sunday 17th of this month was first recorded as 3.0. It had been a fantastically cold morning for the time of year, so I’d made a point of checking at the Elders website.

    When I checked a bit later, the minimum temp for Sunday 17th was 3.5. And thus it remains.

    A case of thinking globally but acting locally?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy at 53

    Bwwwahhh hahahahahahahahah! That was good!

    How about:
    The Ballad Of Spatch Clampett

    Come listen to a story ’bout man named Spatch
    A poor scientist, had to keep his family latched,
    Then one day he was Trollin’ On the web,
    And up through the blogs came a bubblin’ ED.

    Eddy that is
    Golden Gloves
    Tea Party.

    Well the first thing you know ol ‘Patch is runnin’ scared,
    Blogfolk said Spatch get yas outta here”
    Said “Go to Deltoid it’s the place you ought to be”
    So they started posting truths cause he might learn how to see.

    Frauds, that is.
    Peer Reviewed.
    AGW Group Think.

    Well now it’s time to say good by to Spatch and all his kin.
    And we would like to thank him for his short time here within.
    He’d be invited back again to this locality
    If only he’d end the Argument from Authority

    Warmists they are. Hockey Shtick, Tax your shoes off

    Y’all prove the theories now, y’hear?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    P.S.
    With Sincere apologies to Earl Scruggs


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Speedy at 42 I’ve asked Ken Stewart to answer that question if he has time;
    Did anyone see the article in the Australian Climate change sceptics lose battle as onus of proof shifts http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/climate-change-sceptics-lose-battle-as-onus-of-proof-shifts/story-e6frg97x-1225941959223
    It’s about the precautionary principle which I anticipate Julia Gillard will start to talk about shortly; As the article says ‘The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.’
    “the precautionary principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage,” “Where there is a reasonably certain threat of serious or irreversible damage, the precautionary principle is not needed and is not evoked . . . “But where the threat is uncertain, past practice had been to defer taking preventative measures because of that uncertainty.’
    This has been changed by the absorption into Australian law of the precautionary principle which “… operates, when activated, to create an assumption that the threat is not uncertain but rather certain. “… if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle will be activated.”

    The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed. No political party is arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible. The only argument now, in accordance with the precautionary principle, is determining what preventative measures have to be taken to reduce emissions.’

    But she fails to explore the possibility that the threat does not exist or is negligible; just because political parties are not arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible does not mean it the threat does not exist or is negligible; I’m still firmly of the belief that a Royal Commission should be held to determine this issue for Australia;

    I urge all similar minded people to write to Parliamentarians supporting that view or alternatively opposing a price on carbon or both


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Lots of thumbs down on this article got me interested; was looking for a comment or two that provided insight into why people so vigorously objected to this article. Alas nothing.

    Yell at people “YOUR WRONG” as loud and as often as possible, without explanation of clarification; and hopefully, eventually, your position becomes tenable. Sound familiar?

    Easy to game the little thumbies, if you have a bit of computer savvy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Monday’s funeral proceedings at Parliament House in Perth are up on Quadrant:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bob-carter-bush

    Enjoy the read.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    val majkus@42

    In light of the mistake by Chris (Joanne Nova@36), how can we be sure that there are not further errors in his work? He needs to be independently checked by an expert in the field.

    The same goes for Ken.

    As far as I’m aware there has not been an independent check on Ken’s work at all. Therefore all of his claims are not necessarily correct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D

    Brilliant! I couldn’t help but sing along (not a good look, but anyway)…

    We should show this to the Warmists. The title: “How to be actually funny without blowing up kids.” No pressure.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Ken Stewart #20

    1Millionwomen.com.au
    Business must be booming. Recruiting used to be more subtle,
    mainly bars in SE Asia


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Val @ 64:

    You should check out the comments at Climate Realists as well:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6514&linkbox=true&position=5

    I like the first comment by Stephen Wilde:

    It is also uncertain as to what damage will be caused by the application of policy decisions based on the precautionary principle.

    “Therefore the precautionary principle must be applied to itself and such damage regarded as certain.

    Thus the burden of proof is reversed back again and the precautionary principle is negated.

    Some people just don’t know enough basic logic to think things through.

    A simple illustration:

    The environmental damage and faster resource depletion from an unwise pursuit of solar and wind energy systems at the current levels of inefficiency will cause more environmental damage than the emissions that they seek to reduce.”

    I have always hated the enormous arrogance that comes along with those that spout the Precautionary Principle. It is loaded with the pretense that the spoutee is in the right and it is up to you to prove otherwise. It is a lazy approach to debating and has no place whatsoever in science. It is the last resort of the ignorant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Just had a quick look through the thumbs, and it would appear that at least 12 people have ventured into the uncomfortable glare of reality.
    Tell all your friends guys, from our point of view the more of you that come over for a look the better.

    You have to wonder how much longer these people can continue to say “Move on, nothing to see here ”
    Before someone in a position of authority, accepts that they have lost all credibility and orders are completely independent audit of the whole situation.
    Unless of course everyone in a position of authority, knows that they simply cannot afford a completely independent audit of the whole situation


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bingi @ 67

    Mistakes are possible – even inevitable sometimes. Let’s just assume Chris COULD be right (it’s called the Precautionary Principle).

    In this case, would the GISS be advising governments on the basis of error? Yes. And the governments would then formulate policy on that wrong advice? “Very Likely”.

    You’re right. The GISS should consider Chris’s work and, while they’re there, demonstrate the veracity of their own.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Lost data? Temperatures adjusted upwards?
    What comes next must surely be another claytons enquiry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Bulldust thank you for those very astute comments at 70 and for the link
    I liked it so much that I’ve repeated it (with attribution) at
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/regions/australia/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    val majkus@64

    Thanks for posting that article:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/climate-change-sceptics-lose-battle-as-onus-of-proof-shifts/story-e6frg97x-1225941959223

    These paragraphs are so true.

    Climate sceptics have lost the battle, which they could never really win, because the precautionary principle reversed the onus of proof. The only real chance the climate sceptics had of winning the debate was to challenge the fundamental principle on which the theory was based, the precautionary principle.

    Senator Penny Wong’s mantra “the science is certain” was unnecessary — the effect of the precautionary principle is that the science supporting the theory does not have to be certain, but the case against the theory does.

    I always knew the sceptics were never going to win because your whole movement is based on mis-information, ignorance, lies and junk science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Wow the trolls just reinventing names to make it look like there are multiple individuals posting here. Bingi, anyone that uses the Precautionary Principle as the foundation of their argument for a policy obviously has no factual scientific legs to stand on. If they did, they would use the science instead. Like I said, it is the last resort of the ignorant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Val Majkus @ 64

    Bingi’s comment above is a bit rich, don’t you think? Let’s see her defend the accuracy of the BOM/GISS records first – they’re the ones that need the most attention!

    Cheers,

    Mike


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    The Sydney Morning Herald is running a poll about showing An Inconvenient Truth in Australian schools.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/mps-divided-on-educational-value-of-an-inconvenient-truth-20101027-17326.html

    I’ve voted NO


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Bingi # &5

    I wouldn’t start celebrating too soon with all the spin in that article. Have a look at this little graph

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/27/pew-poll-belief-in-global-warming-as-a-serious-problem-continues-to-decline/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Orange

    The “Precautionary Principle” IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE!

    Anybody who knows anything about science is well aware of this!

    Beware the Precautionary Principle….

    http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    val majkus: @78
    ‘It is not a required text but will be used by English teachers to “analyse the way language and emotion can be used to convince viewers of a particular position”, the spokesman said.

    Students may also be directed to undertake their own research on the film’s claims, he said.’

    This could be taken to mean they want to use it as a lesson on how to spot propaganda and the importance of doing your own research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Bingi:
    October 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    These paragraphs are so true.

    Climate sceptics have lost the battle, which they could never really win, because the precautionary principle reversed the onus of proof. The only real chance the climate sceptics had of winning the debate was to challenge the fundamental principle on which the theory was based, the precautionary principle.

    Senator Penny Wong’s mantra “the science is certain” was unnecessary — the effect of the precautionary principle is that the science supporting the theory does not have to be certain, but the case against the theory does.

    I’m having trouble imagining someone dumb enough to believe that. I hope you have a caretaker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    At least they admit that …”the fundamental principle on which the theory (AGW) is based is the precautionary principle.” and not some boring stuff like reasoning and data.

    I’m still agog … if someone will believe that, what won’t they believe?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Val @ 78:

    The Sydney Morning Herald is running a poll about showing An Inconvenient Truth in Australian schools.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/mps-divided-on-educational-value-of-an-inconvenient-truth-20101027-17326.html

    Thanks for the link, I voted NO as well. It didn’t ask me to verify that I was an AU resident so no guilt here (USA). The poll was running around 62% Yes and 39% No so skeptics need to get voting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Speedy @ 68 Thanks and I consider it very high praise coming from you!

    (I think you should work on the Gilligan’s Island theme..)

    “Now sit right back and you’ll hear a tale, a tale of a Hanson “trick”, that started in a Roma club and ………..
    A tree ring tour a tree ring tour…..
    The skeptics started getting tough, the e-mails were a leaked…If not for the scourge of the “Peer”less few, the AGW would be lost AGW would be lost.

    Lets see what we can make this into; maybe a U-tube hit?

    Of course I have no idea if you guys ever saw that show.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Mark D. 62

    I thought about writing a ballad for Spatch but you have already beat me to the punch. Your rendition of the Spatch Clampett Ballet was hilarious. Awesome, dude! Maybe we should include the whole recent crop of trolls in a new rendition to the theme song from the Brady Bunch? Hmmm… “The Trolling Bunch? ” “They knew it was much more than a hunch,That these trolls must some how form a family, thast the way they became the trolling bunch, the trolling bunch…”

    Where is Baa humbug, he should have a crack at this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The Warmist Bunch The Warmist Bunch, That’s the way they became the warmist bunch…….

    I think we might get moderated…..perhaps rightfully so :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bingi:
    October 28th, 2010 at 11:01 am

    val majkus@42
    In light of the mistake by Chris (Joanne Nova@36), how can we be sure that there are not further errors in his work?

    Considering that Jimbo Hansen, et al keep constantly adjusting theei data, when will they ever get it right?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    “One million women wanted to help fight climate change”

    Thanks Pat @10, for this example of labor’s intangible green washing.

    Now we know why the Queensland state government are loosing grip over real assets, when making way for this collective rubbish. It would save the state plenty to simply pay every one of these signatories the cost of a new red dress, green flag, CO2 resistant sun hat and a place at the next Labor Day march prior to the election. The teachers would have to wear a darker shade of red for control purposes. Who said Queensland’s education has improved? The only real increase seems to be union orchestrated wages and the opposite decline of a real sense and responsibility. It’s a crying shame green labor can’t celebrate a real Queensland achiever in the late Inigo Jones (RIP) but then his long-range weather forecasts inconvenient clash with this green labor claptrap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    val majkus:
    October 28th, 2010 at 9:55 am

    It’s important to note that the writer, Josephine Kelly, is a barrister.

    A barristers’ stock in trade is lying – for their clients of course.

    On the other hand climatologists, it seems, are known to lie for their own gratification.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    Correction,

    Thanks Ken Stewart, for posting-

    “the One million women wanted to help fight climate change”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Bingi @ 67:
    So my work needs to be independently checked by an expert in the field?
    Thank you Bingi! That’s exactly what I have been asking for all along- a full scientific enquiry into BOM’s adjustments! That’s what would have to be done to check my claims- but so far no response from BOM or anyone else.
    Here’s a thought- why don’t YOU check my work Bingi? Check the raw data against the HQ data and see what YOU get. Then you would be able to claim some authority to make your feeble criticisms.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I’m not bothered by “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown at schools. We had to attend RI classes at school in the 60s. Most kids will be just as bored as I was at all that religious nonsense and forget about it when they kick the footy around at lunch time. Children only get worried about something when they see their parents acting strangely. In my parent’s case it was President Kennedy the Cuban Missile Crisis. No parents today are talking about Gore with the same concerned awe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    That’s what would have to be done to check my claims- but so far no response from BOM or anyone else.

    Perhaps everyone here could write a FOI request – I hear that’s a popular tactic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Thanks to BobC and others for pointing out that for the CAGW hysterics to rely on the ‘precautionary principle’ is a tacit admission of defeat — the science is not, and never has been, settled.

    After over 20 years of research by thousands of highly paid ‘scientists’ costing taxpayers billions, if not trillions, of dollars worldwide, and the ‘science’ is not settled.

    In April 1961, President Kennedy launched the Apollo program which culminated in July 1969 when the first humans walked on the Moon — 8 years later. NASA scientist then were not over 90% confident that there was over 50% chance of success or over 50% confident that there was over 90% chance of success.

    One of the tests for identifying pseudoscience is absence of progress ✔.
    The others include: use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims ✔, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation ✔, personalization of issues ✔, use of misleading language ✔.
    The only one that doesn’t strictly apply to CAGW is the absence of citation databases — it doesn’t apply because ‘the science’ has been allowed to grow so big that they can happily cite each other.

    In his congressional testimony in 1988 on a very hot Washington day when he was reputed to have arranged to have the air conditioning turn down or off, J Hansen kicked off the whole circus with two whoppers:
    # “…that the rate of warming in the past 25 years….is the highest on record…”.
    # “…the observed warming during the past 30 years … is almost 0.4°C….”.

    In fact, according to his own data, the rate of warming c. 1910 – 1940 ( before human fossil fuel use could have been a factor) was steeper and the rise 1958 – 1988 was about 0.15°C, not 0.4°C and well within natural variation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Ken great comment; and Bingi let’s see your results; look forward to it; criticism is all very well but you have to be prepared to provide some substance as well and what Ken suggests could be your first step


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    TWinkler:

    Now that’s an idea….. But I’m having one last try before that.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I got a pleasant surprise today when I came upon a science doco’ for schools on ABC. I don’t know how it passed the censors. It was a Canadian production of 2008. It described the earth and it’s lifetime from birth to death.

    Anyway, it admitted that the orbit we are in meant that the Ice Age is still active and only 10 000 years ago relented somewhat. However, it continued, scientists expect us to soon enter a worse Ice Age very soon.

    It also explained that most CO2 comes from volcanoes…gasp, heresy!
    It explained that reduced CO2 would be like smothering plants and trees just like we would die with less oxygen.

    An Ice Age intensification would be worse than warming because all life would be limited to the Equatorial area causing warfare and competition for food by all species.

    In millions of years to come scientists expect volcanic activity to increase…we are in a quiet period by comparison now. This will indeed increase CO2 levels to well beyond comfortable limits causing acidification of oceans, etc. But we are no where near that huge increase yet by any stretch of the imagination.

    Still, I wondered if any AGW person watching was having a nervous breakdown seeing such a well balanced, non alarmist scientific doco’ so well presented.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’m a bit confused by the precautionary principal. Has it been shown somewhere that to act in situations where we have incomplete information is wrong?

    There was an earthquake near Sumatra yesterday, and a skipper on a boat felt it and moved his boat to deeper water. There was no guarantee that a tsunami was on its way, and moving the boat was no doubt inconvenient, but he did it anyway. Just as a precaution. It turned out that the move was good, because there was a tsunami. Its lucky you lot weren’t on the boat. The argument over whether anyone really felt anything, and even if they did, what should be done, would have taken so long that the tsunami would have swept the boat away.

    But I forget that in your world, cutting CO2 emissions would be the end of civilisation, so the cure would be worse than the disease.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    John Brookes (99):

    cutting CO2 emissions would be the end of civilisation, so the cure would be worse than the disease

    Cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 without substituting nuclear, certainly would be “the end of civilization”, but what is the “disease” that needs curing?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    John Brookes: @99
    If the captain of that boat had been an AWG alarmist, his response would have been to sink the boat and swim for shore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey manalive@100, I think the disease is something like a couple of degrees warming with consequent sea level rises and all that sort of stuff. But of course the real battle is the fight between short term planning and long term planning. Whether an extra plasma TV now is worth the environmental damage….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    John Brookes (102):

    I think the disease is something like a couple of degrees warming

    According to the IPCC, AGW has been going for 60 years during which time, the mean global temperature has risen 0.7°C, viz. 1.2°C/century.
    Even if you believe that 100% of that rise is 100% likely due to human CO2 emissions, by what process of reasoning do you propose “a couple of degrees” by 2050?

    That’s called empiricism, which used to be the basis of science, I believe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    John Brookes:
    October 28th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    “I’m a bit confused by the precautionary principal. Has it been shown somewhere that to act in situations where we have incomplete information is wrong?

    There was an earthquake near Sumatra yesterday, and a skipper on a boat felt it and moved his boat to deeper water. There was no guarantee that a tsunami was on its way, and moving the boat was no doubt inconvenient, but he did it anyway. Just as a precaution. It turned out that the move was good, because there was a tsunami. Its lucky you lot weren’t on the boat. The argument over whether anyone really felt anything, and even if they did, what should be done, would have taken so long that the tsunami would have swept the boat away.”

    The issue is not so much incomplete information but more about whether the information under consideration has a rational or experiential basis.

    The two relevant and as yet unanswered questions wrt to ACC are:

    1. Are post industrial emissions of CO2 likely to have a significant impact on the Earth’s climate.

    2. If it is assumed they do (as half of the trigger for invoking the precautionary principle) will that anthropogenic change in the Earth’s climate be a good thing as suggested by Sevante Arrhenius, a principle “discoverer” of the GHG properties of CO2, or a bad thing as scientist/alarmists like Hansen and propagandists like Gore suggest.

    Where your tsunami analogy fails is that we “all” and particularly boat skippers know with certainty, from a wealth of human experience with tsunamis, that such an earth tremor can produce massively dangerous-to-boats, waves. Also a boat skipper apparently knows, also from experience, if not his that of others, that his boat will be safer in deeper waters.

    But that is not all for this skipper got a sensory signal of the tremor.

    Thus he makes an adequately informed decision in which the legal qualifications surrounding the precautionary principle make the PP an irrelevant consideration.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The precautionary principle is based on Pascal’s Wager, a cynical response to unsubstantiated faith; and that is the guts of AGW faith; no evidence but let’s cut our throats just to make sure. Craven and pusillanimous; which sums up the essence of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    RE: John Brookes @ 99:

    Interesting read here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf

    Conclusion (excerpt):

    In this article, I have argued not that the Precautionary Principle
    leads in the wrong directions, but that if it is taken for all
    that it is worth, it leads in no direction at all. The reason is that
    risks of one kind or another are on all sides of regulatory
    choices, and it is therefore impossible, in most real-world
    cases, to avoid running afoul of the principle. Frequently, risk
    regulation creates a (speculative) risk from substitute risks or
    from foregone risk-reduction opportunities. And because of
    the (speculative) mortality and morbidity effects of costly regulation,
    any regulation — if it is costly — threatens to run afoul
    of the Precautionary Principle. We have seen that both regulation
    and nonregulation seem to be forbidden in cases involving
    nuclear power, arsenic, global warming, and genetic modification
    of food.

    Author: Cass R. Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago. A prodigious writer on many subjects, he is the author of the just released Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    A followup question about Precautionary Principle: How many AGW researchers bias their results by personally (or subconsciously) applying their own version of the Precautionary Principle?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes

    Perhaps you didn’t read the tail end of the last post. On the other hand your silence may indicate agreement – or embarrassment.

    John Brookes (above)

    I take it, then, that you agree that Jo is right – Al Gore is a shyster and a fraud? Do you think he should give back his Nobel prize and repay his billions? Maybe sell a few seaside mansions and adopt a more “green” lifestyle?

    If not, why so? You’re awfully quiet.

    We’re still waiting… Or are you yet another sheep-like apologist for Al Gore? Do you believe a single word be breathes? If so, please do something that the climate establishment has never done before and show us the proof! Not a bunch of weasel words and computer models – the physical evidence that man-made CO2 is SIGNIFICANT and HARMFUL.

    If you can’t or won’t, why should the tax paying public listen to you?

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Aztec high priests and a few unsavoury Pagans in the lands of the Celts I am told followed the “precautionary principle” by merely recommending how many human lives needed to be wasted I mean sacrificed to ensure a harvest or even a growing season.

    AGW “scientists” are exactly these High Priests and if you think the “low-carbon diet” mandates recommended by these people aren’t death sentences for those who can’t afford to buy their way out of it then think again.

    Global Warmers are SCUMBAGS and a lot of other undesirable things that I can’t even write here


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    October 28th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    I’m a bit confused by the precautionary principal. Has it been shown somewhere that to act in situations where we have incomplete information is wrong?

    John, it seems as if you are almost always confused by just about everything. General George Armstrong Custer had incomplete information and the result was the slaughter of his men at the Battle of The Little Big Horn!

    There was an earthquake near Sumatra yesterday, and a skipper on a boat felt it and moved his boat to deeper water…

    Considering that he was reacting to an event which actually occurred he was both wise and prudent. Your analogy is false. Earthquakes can trigger tsunamis, increases in CO2 can never cause runaway global warming/climate change/climate disruption.

    But I forget that in your world, cutting CO2 emissions would be the end of civilisation, so the cure would be worse than the disease.

    The only people I know of that frequent this site who live in their own little world are people like you, John, who suffer from herd mentality and base their belief in CAGW on an appeal to authority and bogus climate models! Cutting CO2 levels would be all pain and no gain! Trust me, John, “Little House On The Prairie” was a romanticization of what life was like before the advent of the hydrocarbon age. Do you really want us all to live a short and brutish life that ends on an average of between 45 to 50 years? Look at how the people of sub saharan Africa live. That is what life would be like for all of us in that brave new green world! Is that what you really want, John?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    JUST OFF THE PRESS


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    If this “discovery” was reported to have come from someplace other than Harvard it would have been labelled “anti-progress” or “racist” somehow


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark D. @114,

    October 29th, 2010 at 3:53 am

    JUST OF THE PRESS: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Liberalism is genetic!

    I guess I don’t have that gene then. I became a Republican in about the 8th grade during a course in U.S. Government when the differences between the two parties were explained. The decision was just about instinctive.

    On the other hand, far too many Republicans are acting like liberals these days. So what does that tell us about liberalism being genetic?

    Next thing you know, preferring a Cadillac over a Chevy will be declared genetic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Trying to argue against the precautionary principle with John Brookes is about like demanding that the mountain come to you. I think you’ll need to go to the mountain to get agreement from John.

    All the more’s the pity!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Come to think of it, maybe the precautionary principle is genetic. I think I’ll apply for a great big grant to investigate the phenominon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Precautionary principal assumes:
    1. Risk is well defined or risk consequences is projected to be extremely high
    2. cost of effective/comprehensive mitigation is minimal/none
    3. impact of mitigation is minimal/none (no unintended negative consequences; secondary beneficial outcomes welcome)

    Risk assessment is a difficult professional skill; and most peoples intuitions lead them astray when trying to construct an evidence based risk profile; especially on highly emotive issues. People who gravitate to precautionary principal as a justification for (C)AGW mitigation policies assume that 3 points above hold true for this issue, particularly point 2.

    This is something I vigorously dispute; especially point 2 (unless nuclear power is on the table for discussion, which it generally never is in this issue; or geo-engineering). Point 1 I dispute as well; the potency of co2 as a potent climate agent is regularly disputed and on various empirical grounds; and it’s potency is essential for point 1 being true. Point 3 is trickier; as it relies more heavily on making social/political assessments of cost impact of mitigation; I doubt there is anyone on the planet, including Stern and Garnaut, who can comment on this with any real expertise or insight.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bilge:
    October 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    I always knew the sceptics were never going to win because your whole movement is based on mis-information, ignorance, lies and junk science

    .

    Allow me to retort you halfwit:

    I always knew that climate alarmists were never going to win because your whole movement is based on misinformation, greed, lies and junk science. Quit being a rube. There si no empirical evidence to support your bogus CAGW hypothesis, period!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    At #117 you say:

    Trying to argue against the precautionary principle with John Brookes is about like demanding that the mountain come to you. I think you’ll need to go to the mountain to get agreement from John.

    OK. I will accept the challenge.

    Perhaps John Brookes would care to comment on this.

    Advocates of AGW use the Precutionary Principle saying we should stop greenhouse gas emissions in case the AGW hypothesis is right. But that turns the Principle on its head.

    Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.

    The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    October 28th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    I’m a bit confused by the precautionary principal. Has it been shown somewhere that to act in situations where we have incomplete information is wrong?

    (That you are confused is assumed :-) )
    You have lived a sheltered life — many actions on incomplete data could potentially result in your death. You might have a different perspective had you ever been in such a situation.

    The actions being pushed (to “fix” the non-problem of AGW) are likely to result in, at least, 10′s of millions of deaths in the 3rd world, and major pain in the developed world. The folks who say “don’t worry!, nothing bad will come of it” have zero credibility (earned) in predicting the future.

    You are living in a dream world — if you’re lucky, you won’t have to deal with reality: It will depend on us (skeptics) however to keep you from that unpleasant eventuality.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Richard @ 121:

    As you have so neatly pointed out, the precautionary principle is a logical short-circuit — it can be used against anything, including itself.

    Of course, expecting people who “believe” in AGW to identify circular logic may be asking too much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard @121,

    Very good case! However I think you misunderstood me. I intended to hint that Eddy would have to agree with John before he could find John to be in agreement with him. Something Eddy clearly will not do.

    Whether John actually understands the problems involved in the precautionary principle I can’t say. But clearly now that he’s staked out a position about it he must stick to that position forever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    I just love the comment from this recent article in WUWT….

    The question is: How does CO2 know which area to heat and what not to?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/01/a-few-thoughts-on-californias-proposition-23/#more-27293

    This goes a long way to explaining the ‘adjustments’.

    ha.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] GISS Queso suizo-gate (WUWT) y ¡Nuevo! aquí (Jo Nova).: GISS utiliza estaciones de temperatura a 1200 km para suplir la falta de datos, creando [...]


    Report this

    00