"Extreme" weather? You mean like this?

[marchesarosa]

NASA Rewriting US Temperature History

Until about ten years ago, NASA showed the US on an 80 year long cooling trend, with the three hottest years being in the 1920s and 1930s. They have deleted the raw data from their website and blocked archiving, but John Daly captured it. It was originally located at this link :

www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

and can now be seen here :

www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

NASA has since rewritten US history and shows the same period warming – with 1998 as the hottest year.





How come no-one picks them up on these scams with "adjusting" the historical data? Shades of 1984.

[aubrey]

You imagine that oil companies (and their tame Pollies and lobbying groups) have no interest in disproving AGW? Or even in muddying the waters? Or have not done the same kind of thing before?

And why is it ok to criticise a pro AGW bloke for being politically motivated and not ok to do the same with anti-AWG beggars? You can't have it both ways: you can't say that you lot are all have pure motivations, and merely want to get at the truth, while the others are all venial, lying bounders.

[marchesarosa]

Show us "massaged" data from YOUR favourite bugbears, aubrey, equivalent to NASA/GISS's distortion of the record shown above, please.

NASA/GISS is BIG league in the climate stakes alongside NOAA/GHCN, CRU and the Met Office.

This is the sort of phoney politicised "science" that YOU think is ok and constantly defer to.

We don't need politicians to distort science for us the "scientists" are doing it themselves, especially the lead authors of the IPCC ensconced in the above national institutions.

Your view, "Leftwing Science Good, Rightwing Science BAAAAD", has echoes of the the sheep on Animal Farm.

You should listen to the clear echoes of totalitarians in your views.

"Science" can't afford to be entangled with political promoters like you and your Green pals, I'm afraid, aubrey.

[aubrey]

But it is already politicised: your version is just Right wing science good, left wing science bad.

You are not going to try saying that oil companies don't have a stake in this: that they're quietly waiting to see how it all turns out? No, they're in there, working to get the "Right" result: just as they were with the lead in petrol thing, just like they are with their lobbying against safety regulations on their platforms, etc.

[marchesarosa]

I am not saying Oil companies do not have an interest in politics, aubrey. I am saying they are not the ones fiddling the data. They are in no position to fiddle the data. That is all being done by state funded BIG SCIENCE for the purposes of bolstering the agenda of the IPCC.

Don't insult me by attaching YOUR favourite tags to me, aubrey.

I have no time either for the concepts of left and right wing and no time for political parties. I judge things on their merits. Right and Left are your personal pre-occupations and they are NOT inherent in the science AT ALL. They are imported as a red herring by people like you who cannot win the objective scientific debate because there is quite simply NO EVIDENCE for the hypothesis you are trailing that fossil fuel CO2 emitted by human agency is changing the climate.

If you want to discuss party politics do it somewhere else, please, this sub board is about climate, about which you have never evinced any evidence or data at all apart from parroting simplistic alarmist memes purveyed by the media.

[aubrey]

like you who cannot win the objective scientific debate

Well, obviously, as I'm not a scientist; this is what stops me from getting involved in the science, not being a scientist.

If the interpretation of the figures that you use is so obvious, why has it not been accepted by most scientists? Why is there even a debate? Surely the entity you call Big Science would be able to get more money by just saying there's no problem, and by providing a scientific basis for the energy companies to do what they like.

If oil companies have no control over the science, how did they manage to keep lead in their petrol for so long? How did they manage to pretend that there was no problem? By continually questioning the evidence, and by giving the impression of honest scientific disagreement.

[marchesarosa]

What you fail to understand, aubrey, is that it is not BIG OIL that funds the opposition to climate alarmism.

The funding comes from exactly the same source as the IPCC's pet scientists get it - from the public purse - only not nearly so m of it!

Many scientists in many disciplines are beavering away in their institutions round the world and discovering stuff the IPCC crowd refused to investigate because they thought they had the right answer without doing the appropriate checks and without determining what other causal factors were involved in temperature rise apart form the greenhouse effect due to extra CO2.



"The science is settled" is a very arrogant and unscientific belief system for any investigator to assume, especially in a science as immature as "climatology".

[marchesarosa]

Here are some interesting points from an essay from James Annan, a former collaborator with Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame. He won't be a pal much longer, though when Mann reads this.

It's effectively a recantation of IPCC orthodoxy from an insider.

...there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 degrees' is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5 degreesC.’

and

But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

and

Interestingly, one of them (an IPCC author) stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.

------

For those of you who don't know what "climate sensitivity" means it is the rise in temperature that would be expected from a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from the pre-industrial level. Sceptics say sensitivity is low whereas alarmists say it is high - which is where the predictions that temperatures will rise by 6+ degrees' by the end of the century come from.

The climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is also believed to be logarimic in scale meaning that every subsequent doubling has a rapidly diminishing effect of temperature.

Now that's an interesting concept, isn't it, Greens? Perhaps you could ask Caroline Lucas to explain it to you next time your paths cross?

[marchesarosa]

bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/2/3/zickfeld-folly-josh-199.html

[aubrey]

What you fail to understand, aubrey, is that it is not BIG OIL that funds the opposition to climate alarmism.

The funding comes from exactly the same source as the IPCC's pet scientists get it - from the public purse - only not nearly so m of it!

Yes, and they make up the odd few pence with donations from Donald Trump and the Koch brothers (who are very careful to get it pronounced something like "Ko" or "Cow" - definitely not "cock") and people like that.

"The science is settled" is a very arrogant and unscientific belief system for any investigator to assume

Tell Someone Else that. I got a bollocking from off of him a couple of weeks ago for writing the same thing. The science is settled, he said, in that way of his; I can't remember what it was about now.