Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (92.00)

Climate conspiracy theories



November 28, 2009 – Comments (37)

Just a few questions.

1. How many other research groups have been working on global warming for the last 20 years and have come to the same conclusion that the warming is there for real? 

2. Suppose a research group at one university falsified the experimental data. How likely is it that all the other researchers would rely on that one flawed study for decades before anyone bothers to conduct their own experiment?

3. If several other teams do their own experiment, how long will it take before the original study is exposed as an error at best and a hoax at worst?

4. If some crooked scientists used correct experimental data and put a spin on it, then again, how long would it take for someone else to expose the data manipulation?

5. Is anybody even aware that deletion of experimental data and removing some dissenting opinions is normal part of research?

6. Does anybody believe that all universities of the world have been part of a global climate conspiracy and that all scientists working for them happily participated in it?

7. If the emails were deemed to be "compromising material" by the people who exchanged them, shouldn't we expect that at least one of them would choose to make them public, if only to become a celebrity and make more money from interviews than the university is paying him?

8. Que bono? The motivation of global warming deniers is clear. One can easily see why an industrialist would be opposed to reducing emissions. Can anybody explain to me why anybody would be interested in supporting the global warming theory and why most governments would find their arguments so compelling that they would go against their own industry? 

And finally, a simple empirical question: if you distrust all scientists, do you personally see the weather as getting colder? 

37 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 28, 2009 at 5:32 PM, blesto (31.82) wrote:

My personal opinion is that we've been globally warming ever since the last Ice Age. I'm sure there's different agendas out there for gaining money, power, and fame off all of it, theories true or not.  

There are other theories about  magnetic pole shifts (north becomes south and vice versa) that cycle about every 50 to 70 thousand years, and that we might be over due for one. Which would dramatically affect the climate, possibly plunging us into another Ice Age.

For investment purposes, one might want to hedge their bets btwn industries & companies that could benefit from worst case & best case scenarios. 

Report this comment
#2) On November 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, GreenMachine09 (29.11) wrote:

In regards to point #8.

Exactly who do you think you are to refer to anyone as a "deniar"? Al Gore used the phrase to make the no believers of his religion look like people compared to "holocaust deniars".

Que bono? Seriously? Do you think that people that don't buy into what people tell you to believe have an agenda? No, they are everyday people that want to be left alone by the government. They want a government that doesn't spend it's way into the abyss even further, and one that doesn't limit our basic human rights in the name of an environment that is in no way an danger.

You don't have to watch, but gandering at these will be very good for you. Yes, one clip is from Fox News. But, please don't try and make a partisian arguement out of this. It's not a partisian issue, if you want proof look at all of the Republican boneheads that support global warming legislation(McCain, Bush, Grahm, Romney, etc.)

I don't buy into global warming because the "fix" for it is expensive, and what we are "fixing" doens't exist in the first place.

Report this comment
#3) On November 28, 2009 at 7:38 PM, mazzolata (< 20) wrote:

Re: " Can anybody explain to me why anybody would be interested in supporting the global warming theory and why most governments would find their arguments so compelling that they would go against their own industry? "

You have a lot of reading to do my friend.

There are many environmentalists and professional alarmists (Al Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Clintons, just to name a few) who are heavily invested in “alternative energy” companies and have millions and billions to gain from the climate-change gravy (taxpayer money flowing into this climate-change hype) train rolling. According to NYT, the biggest gloom and doom alarmists of all, Al Gore plans to become the first “carbon billionaire”. Sensationalism is much more lucrative. Scientists and alarmists who had millions and billions of taxpayer money to gain by frightening the public fabricated a climate change catastrophe for anxious public. (Read NYT article).

They put forward an ideology that is blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. Politicians build new bureaucracies and pose as environmental saviors without having to face the consequences of their actions.

A very small group of politically motivated scientists who have evolved into professional alarmists in order to reap rewards in research money (more taxpayer funds) and fame generated sensational Global Warming Theory. This small group of scientists (~42) has controlled and manipulated the data, has controlled all scientific publications, peer reviewed among themselves, etc. (Dr. Bell explains well)

These crooks even admitted that they only have the cooked ("manually adjusted") temperature data. They have completely destroyed the original incriminating them in fraud evidence.

"It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

Why would they destroy the original data?

The whole idea of scientific discovery is for other independent scientists to be able to reproduce the results (to verify the claims).

"Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.”The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.

Report this comment
#4) On November 28, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

+1 rec for comment 3.
I suspect there is another "Can of Worms" on the shelf. H1N1 next?

Report this comment
#5) On November 28, 2009 at 8:00 PM, djkumquat (41.35) wrote:

real science is showing more and more that global warming is an actual phenomonum, and polluting industries are trying to sow seeds of doubt. descenters are just modern day flat-earth believers.

Report this comment
#6) On November 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:


The warming is due to a mixture of natural and anthropological causes. The weight of anthropological causes is still debatable, and I don't consider myself qualified to take part in that debate. That's what climatologists are for.


The numerical majority of deniers are "everyday people that want to be left alone by the government", but that doesn't mean the anti-global-warming movement is a movement by everyday people. The leadership is quite sophisticated and shows every sign of being well-financed.   


If you think that any one group can destroy their data and this will stop all independent research in the field and the whole community will have to take them by their word, then you simply have no idea how actual science works. 


I was underwhelmed (let's put it that mildly) by the suggestion in post #3 that Climatology has been controlled by a cabal of 42 scientists :)


There has been some legitimate dissent in the science community, which should not be confused with politically motivated pseudo-research coming from the oil industry. 

Report this comment
#7) On November 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


You are about so see that all were using the same data.  I can't wait to show you how they get the data. 

Turn on Fox CNN MSNBC etc. They are lying to you. (It wouldn't be the first time. See: Iraq War)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On November 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM, djkumquat (41.35) wrote:

nonsense. it's true that there is some dissent, but it's more to do with splitting hairs than the overall arguement of global warming or whether it's man-made. more and more, scientists are finding evidence that global warming is worse than thought. public opinion, on the other hand, seems to be drifting away from the facts.the science community needs a better PR agency, i guess.

also, it's worth noting that al gore = big oil. if anything, he has the most to gain by denying global warming. at it's not like he's writing the rules anymore. it's been almost a decade since he left office, so now he's just a rich guy championing a very real cause.

Report this comment
#9) On November 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM, mazzolata (< 20) wrote:

Re: "If you think that any one group can destroy their data and this will stop all independent research in the field and the whole community will have to take them by their word, then you simply have no idea how actual science works."

This is not just any data. They controlled and manipulated the GLOBAL temperature data. All other scientists relied on this data (but the data was cooked) for their "independent research"

You do not know my background and please do not even start with "you simply have no idea how actual science works" nonsense.


Report this comment
#10) On November 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM, djkumquat (41.35) wrote:

note to self: it's hard to edit your comments when you're cooking onions.

Report this comment
#11) On November 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM, djkumquat (41.35) wrote:

so what's your background?

regardless of whether you believe it or not, you have the same opportunities to profit. maybe on a different scale, but deniers can make a buck just like the believers.

Report this comment
#12) On November 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM, mazzolata (< 20) wrote:

Look at the facts. Earth is a warm, wet, greenhouse planet. There has been ice on its surface for less than 20 per cent of its history, and in the geological past there have been six great ice ages. Two ice ages were characterised by ice at the Equator, with sea levels rising by up to 5,000ft. That is sea-level change!

Five of the ice ages saw a far higher atmospheric carbon-dioxide content than at present. So carbon dioxide could not have caused past climate changes. Indeed, early Earth had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now - yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, tipping points or acid oceans.

The initial source of the two main greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide, was volcanoes. Water vapour is still the main greenhouse gas. Once oceans formed and life appeared, carbon was then recycled between the oceans, atmosphere, soils, life and rocks. Carbon dioxide is a plant food, not a pollutant.

Human activity produces only three per cent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day. Carbon dioxide has a short life in the atmosphere and is absorbed by natural processes that have been taking place for billions of years.

Life thrived during warm times and life suffered in cool times. Great civilisations collapsed when it was cool.

It was so hot during the 600-year-long 'Roman warming' that grapes were grown as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Sea levels did not rise and polar ice did not vanish. Some Alpine glaciers disappeared, only to appear later. The cold Dark Ages followed: starvation, rampant disease and massive depopulation occurred.

A 400-year warm period followed. The Vikings grew barley and wheat, and raised cattle and sheep in parts of Greenland that are now uninhabitable. During this 'medieval warming', there was so much excess wealth generated from generations of reliable harvests that the great monasteries, cathedrals and universities were built.

Yet sea levels did not rise and the ice sheets were not lost. And, significantly, humans could not have driven the Roman and medieval warmings by carbon-dioxide emissions, as there was no industry.

Report this comment
#13) On November 28, 2009 at 9:20 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:


An experimental discovery cannot be recognized as an established fact until confirmed independently by at least 2-3 other laboratories. It's a fundamental principle known to any scientist, in fact, it's they first thing they will tell you when you if you ask them what science is. If the community just accepted data from one single source and never tried to check it independently, it would be a totally unprecedented thing. If it were true, that would be the end of science as we know it.

Report this comment
#14) On November 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


LOL, of course silly. That's not what I am getting at. It's alright. By the end of the week, you'll be tumbling down the rabbit hole with the rest of us.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On November 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM, mazzolata (< 20) wrote:

Dems, liberal media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and all other GE networks [GE is positioned to gain a lot of taxpayer money from the hype]), and Obama administration are all lying to the public about the "scientific consensus".


In fact, over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, (more than 13 times the number of UN scientists [52] who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 "scientific consensus"), voiced strong skepticism about the so-called man-made global warming.


More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

Report this comment
#16) On November 28, 2009 at 10:03 PM, ChrisGraley (28.79) wrote:

I'm not saying that it's happended in any particular case, but if you post data that I agree with and I have enough money, I'm sure I could pay a couple of scientists to validate it.

There is very little that is pure in the world anymore.

Got a trial where the sentence might be death and it needs a scientific expert? Just send me a check and what side that you are on an I'll send out the expert to prove your case for you.

Report this comment
#17) On November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Government and science have always worked together nobly and ethically. 


Eugenics in Germany

How could I ever think that they would betray such a noble tradition? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#18) On November 28, 2009 at 10:16 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:

Report this comment
#19) On November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Read the comments of that article.  The people aren't buying that crap anymore.

They've learned to think for themselves. They aren't the "joiners" so hilariously scammed in this video.  Next year, we'll be laughing at all the "fraud deniers."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On November 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:

Yes, Lysenkoism is an excellent case in point. But have you noticed that even with Stalin's backing, Lysenko was laughed at by the scientists until he literally held a gun to their head? 

Report this comment
#21) On November 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


If those scientists had received $22.6 million in research grants like Phil Jones, to study Lysenkoism, he never would have needed the gun.

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#22) On November 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM, GreenMachine09 (29.11) wrote:


Very good video link, in my second video the guy referes to this arguement that people would sign the petition to ban water because of how hydrogen monoxide sounded. Kind of the same deal compared to banning carbon dioxide, it's scary sounding which was apparently enough to convice people that it was somehow bad. Nonsense, considering it is essentially plant food. Without plants we have no oxygen. Without oxygen we die.

Report this comment
#23) On November 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:

Well, I don't think that all climatologists have been paid $22.6 million, so if that one guy proves to be a fake, we'll soon hear that he quit his job, if only because colleagues wouldn't shake his hand. Dishonesty exists in the academia, but it takes subtler forms than an outright bribe. Most typically, it's relatively harmless stuff like publication of papers that have little scientific value yet satisfy all formal publication criteria. Deliberate falsification is extremely rare, and it's certainly not something you can easily get away with. This is why we don't have Lysenkoism here, despite all the profit potential. Just imagine, if geneticists had promised baby Bush to turn corn into sugar cane (or better yet, turn Democrats into Republicans :) by some clever application of Lamarkism. Wouldn't that make them billionaires overnight?

Report this comment
#24) On November 29, 2009 at 12:08 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


In this Marshall Institute paper from 2005, they report that $2 billion in tax payer money was shelled out for climate research.  I've read estimates that the total to date is $6 billion.  This is a boondoggle.  Scientists know that they can get research grants more easily by promoting AGW science.  Jones is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities identifies the leading suppliers and recipients of government and foundation resources in climate-based research.

The study compiles and presents publicly available data on grants from the federal government and private foundations. Some of the findings include:

Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations.
For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institution’s expenditures on atmospheric R&D. Report this comment
#25) On November 29, 2009 at 12:27 AM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:

So, how does that motivate your average Professor Joe Schmuck from Nebraska State University to falsify the hockey stick data that Joe has diligently collected by studying redwood trees in Sequoya National Forest? Is he afraid to lose his tenure track position if the Department Chair does not like his article? Or did Joe get a phone call from the Director of the National Science Foundation who advised him to pull his article from or his grant will be revoked? I'm afraid you confused Phil Jones with Lysenko and Obama with Putin :) 

Report this comment
#26) On November 29, 2009 at 12:36 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


I have no idea. My concern right now is with Phil Jones and Michael Mann, and the rest of the gang at CRU East Angilia and the Tree-Ring Lab.  Do other professors make their own measurements or do they just use Mann et al's data (that was rubber stamped in a rigged peer review process)? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On November 29, 2009 at 1:05 AM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:


I honestly don't know. It shouldn't be too hard (if you have a couple of months to spare :) to look up the science citations index, find every important paper on climate, and see how many climatologists relied exclusively on the results by Jones and Mann (or the "derivative" papers that in turn cite Jones and Mann), how many were influenced by Jones and Mann, and how many relied exclusively on other sources. I personally would be shocked if it turned out that a handful of people held a monopoly on experimental evidence. 

Report this comment
#28) On November 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM, sleepreading (< 20) wrote:

I heard the the emails...went home from work and cut down a tree.  We are all still here.   Global Warming is a man made problem, Invented, packaged, sold, "cooked" and ate up by the public.  Believing in the "Scientific Consensus" published by the IPCC is like believeing in the "Economic Consensus" you hear from the one "Economist" on Fox and Friends in the morning telling you the recession is over.

Report this comment
#29) On November 29, 2009 at 2:06 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


This article talks about the influential role that these jokesters have on the process. And from my experience with bureaucracy I would be shocked if a handful of people DIDN'T have massive influence on the work at IPCC.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On November 29, 2009 at 3:08 AM, mlaursen (< 20) wrote:

re: "5. Is anybody even aware that deletion of experimental data and removing some dissenting opinions is normal part of research?"

I don't make my living as a scientist, but I do remember that it being repeatedly beaten into us when studying Physics and other science classes that one NEVER deletes data. If you think something is wrong with the data, you keep it and note why you think something is wrong with it.

Report this comment
#31) On November 29, 2009 at 4:14 AM, portefeuille (98.74) wrote:

good post!

Report this comment
#32) On November 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM, starbucks4ever (92.00) wrote:


Not every measurement has the same value, just like not every opinion is equally valuable. What gets reported is the data series that you think is most relevant. Also, the peer review process can be "rigged" in a good sense of the word. There is always one professor out there who likes to invent a perpetual motion machine because he passed his graduate Physics course by mistake. It will probably be OK if you exclude him from the review process, and it won't tarnish your reputation as an honest scientist.

Report this comment
#33) On November 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

It's simple. Take for example the surface instrumental record, one of the many lines of evidence confirming that the world is getting warmer. There's raw, unprocessed data freely available to anyone [1, 2, 3] But this raw data is meaningless if you don't analyze it. So there are several groups who are dedicated to process this data and make temperature products which are relied upon by thousands of researchers. Let's take a look at some of these temperature products and what they tell us:
- Global Surface Temperature Anomalies, a product of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
- GISSTemp, a product of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
- HadCRUT3, a product of University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
Each product uses different techniques to get rid of biases such as the urban heat island effect, relocalization of weather stations, poorly covered regions (most of Africa, Antarctica and the Arctic) and others. Some of them share freely the code, the raw data and the documentation to the public (GISSTemp) while others can't do that since some of the raw data are provided by national weather services on special conditions. This is the case of HadCRUT3, where a small part of the data is protected as a trade secret and thus makes the whole product immune to FOI requests.
So, what these temperature products tell us. You be the judge.

Remember that this is just one line of evidence. There's also one line of evidence "controlled" by "skeptics" (the satellite record product developed by Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) which agrees with other lines of evidence.

1- GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
2- USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.2)
3- European weather stations (ECA)

Report this comment
#34) On November 30, 2009 at 12:58 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Quantifying the Hansen Y2K Errorby Steve McIntyre on August 6th, 2007

I observed recently that Hansen's GISS series contains an apparent error in which Hansen switched the source of GISS raw from USHCN adjusted to USHCN raw for all values January 2000 and later. For Detroit Lakes MN, this introduced an error of 0.8 deg C. I've collated GISS raw minus USHCN adjusted for all USHCN sites (using the data scraped from the GISS site, for which I was most criticized in Rabett-world). Figure 1 below shows a histogram of the January 2000 step for the 1221 stations (calculated here as the difference between the average of the difference after Jan 2000 and for the 1990-1999 period.) The largest step occurred in Douglas AZ where the Hansen error is 1.75 deg C! There is obviously a bimodal distribution.

Next here is a graph showing the difference between GISS raw and USHCN adjusted by month (with a smooth) for unlit stations (Which are said to define the trends). The step in January 2000 is clearly visible and results in an erroneous upward step of about 0.18-0.19 deg C. in the average of all unlit stations. I presume that a corresponding error would be carried forward into the final GISS estimate of US lower 48 temperature and that this widely used estimate would be incorrect by a corresponding amount. The 2000s are warm in this record with or without this erroneous step, but this is a non-negligible error relative to (say) the amounts contested in the satellite record disputes.

On the weekend, I notified Hansen and Ruedy of their Y2K error as follows:

Dear Sirs,
In your calculation of the GISS "raw" version of USHCN series, it appears to me that, for series after January 2000, you use the USHCN raw version whereas in the immediately prior period you used USHCN time-of-observation or adjusted version. In some cases, this introduces a seemingly unjustified step in January 2000.

I am unaware of any mention of this change in procedure in any published methodological descriptions and am puzzled as to its
rationale. Can you clarify this for me?

In addition, could you provide me with any documentation (additional to already published material) providing information on the
calculation of GISS raw and adjusted series from USHCN versions, including relevant source code.

Thank you for your attention,
Stephen McIntyre

Today I received the following response:

Dear Sir,

As to the question about documentation, the basic "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis" page starts with a "Background" section whose first paragraph contains the sentence: "Input data for the analysis ,…, is the unadjusted data of GHCN, except that the USHCN station records were replaced by a later corrected version". A similar statement appears in the "Abstract" and the "Introduction" section of our 2001 paper (JGR Vol 106, pg 23,947-23,948). The Introduction explains the above statement in more detail.

In 2000, USHCN provided us with a file with corrections not contained in the GHCN data. Unlike the GHCN data, that product is not kept current on a regular basis. Hence we used (as you noticed) the GHCN data to extend those data in our further updates (2000-present).

I agree with you that this simple procedure creates an artificial step if some new corrections were applied to the newest data, rather than bringing the older data in sync with the latest measurements - as I naively assumed. Comparing the 1999 data in both data sets showed that in about half the cases where the 1999 data were changed, the GHCN data were higher than the USHCN data and in the other half it was the other way round with the plus-corrections slightly outweighing the minus-corrections.

Although trying to eliminate those steps should have little impact on the US temperature trend (much less the global trend), it seems a good idea to do so and I'd like to thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention.

When we did our monthly update this morning, an offset based on the last 10 years of overlap in the two data sets was applied and our on-line documentation was changed correspondingly with an acknowledgment of your contribution. This change and its effect will be noted in our next paper on temperature analysis and in our end-of-year temperature summary.

The effect on global means and all our tables was less than 0.01 C. In the display most sensitive to that change - the US-graph of annual means - the anomalies decreased by about 0.15 C in the years 2000-2006.


Reto A Ruedy

Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy's 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 - I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you'll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don't have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn't be surprised if they get an FOI request. I'll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I've noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy's reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I'm not sure what business it is of Gavin's other than his "private capacity" involvement in a prominent blog.

Report this comment
#35) On November 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

Uhh, a insignificant error was discovered and then corrected. Big deal, isn't it?
"This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.
The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area)."

"In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.
Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake.

More from Tim Lambert.

Report this comment
#36) On November 30, 2009 at 1:22 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Yep, just like the Hockey Stick error that McIntyre pointed out to Mann et. al

I just want to make sure that we are on the same page here. Will you admit that one individual doing his on research in Canada has found several mistakes with AGW research, that scientists have admitted McIntyre has been correct repeatedly, and all this despite only having access to limited amounts of data while the rest is kept from public view and repeated FOI requests?

For more visit Climate Audit

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#37) On November 30, 2009 at 1:49 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

"Yep, just like the Hockey Stick error that McIntyre pointed out to Mann et. al"
The hockey stick has been validated by numerous independent studies and by a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" assembled by the US National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate [1]:
"The panel published its report in 2006. The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:
    * The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
    * Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
    * It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
    * Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
    * Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods."

"I just want to make sure that we are on the same page here. Will you admit that one individual doing his on research in Canada has found several mistakes with AGW research, that scientists have admitted McIntyre has been correct repeatedly, and all this despite only having access to limited amounts of data while the rest is kept from public view and repeated FOI requests?"
I just want to make sure that we are on the same page here. Will you admit that McIntyre's findings are usually irrelevant and concentrated in non-core evidence of ACC (climate reconstructions of the past milennia), that he doesn't hesitate to smear scientists, that his requests of data are generally BS and that his financial interests cast doubt over his integrity?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners