Man-Made Global Warming Disappears, Found to Be Man-Madeup; The One-World Band in Copenhagen Plays On
While we’re on the verge of promising some unspecified amount of money we don’t have to the developing world to “participate in a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 if a climate change compromise is reached,” the data underlying the entire premise of human-caused global warming has not only merely been discredited, it has most sincerely been discredited.
James Delingpole earlier this week wrote that “the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.”
Today, Joseph D’Aleo at Pajamas Media elaborated, and expanded the scope —
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
…. In the IEA report, there is a chart showing CRU’s selective use of 25% of the Russian data created 0.64C more warming than was exhibited by using 100% of the raw data. Given the huge area Russia represents (11.5% of global land surface area), this significantly affects global land temperatures.
…. Russia was not the only area that underwent cherry-picking, nor is CRU the only cherry-picker.
NOAA’s global climate database (GHCN) — according to CRU’s Phil Jones in …. (an) email — mirrors the CRU data under attack ….
…. And NASA uses the GHCN, applying their own adjustments ….
We know from the maps that NASA produces — produced using NOAA GHCN data — that Canada is largely missing. As is Greenland. The Arctic. Much of Africa. Brazil. And parts of Australia.
The data supposedly “supporting” the whole human-caused global warming presence really IS a bunch of globaloney. It proves nothing, except that virtually all of the major players involved in the enterprise are (or were) world-class con artists who have been caught dead to rights.
Yet at the Copenhagen charade Hillary Clinton today and Barack Obama tomorrow are unfazed, either oblivious to these inconvenient truths or more likely hostile to them. Because, as noted back in October, it has never really been about global warming. It has been about redistribution of wealth and power to a world body that looks, acts, and enforces its mission like a government — and eventually for all practical purposes becomes a government. By their statements and actions, I am forced to conclude that seeing this through is their mission, and obsession.
UPDATE: It’s a complete wipeout, and nothing is reliable, as these specifics from a Joseph D’Aleo column at PJM earlier this week show (the column’s subheadline is “The focus belongs not just on CRU, but on all of the organizations which gather temperature data. All now show evidence of fraud“) –
Climategate has sparked a flurry of examinations of the global data sets — not only at CRU, but in nations worldwide and at the global data centers at NOAA and NASA. Though the Hadley Centre implied their data was in agreement with other data sets and thus trustworthy, the truth is other data centers are complicit in the data manipulation fraud.
The New Zealand Climate Coalition had long solicited data from New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), which is responsible for New Zealand’s National Climate Database. For years the data was not released, despite many requests to NIWA’s Dr. Jim Salinger — who came from CRU. With Dr. Salingers’ departure from NIWA, the data was released and showed quite a different story than the manipulated data. The raw data showed a warming of just 0.06C per century since records started in 1850. This compared to a warming of 0.92C per century in NIWA’s (CRU’s) adjusted data.
Willis Eschenbach, in a guest post on Anthony Watts’ blog, found a smoking gun at Darwin station in Australia. Raw data from NOAA (from their GHCN, Global Historical Climate Network, that compiled data that NASA and Hadley work with) showed a cooling of 0.7C. After NOAA “homogenized” the data for Darwin, that changed dramatically (to a warming of 1.2C.
…. Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is station dropout after 1990. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today. The stations that dropped out were mainly rural and at higher latitudes and altitudes — all cooler stations. This alone should account for part of the assessed warming.
…. Is NASA in the clear? No. ….. They also constantly fiddle with the data. John Goetz showed that 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the 2 1/2 years ending in 2007.
And don’t forget that the custodians of the precious raw data have admitted that they’ve “lost” it (“The Dog Ate My Global Warming Homework).
UPDATE 2: Related, from Mark Steyn at The Corner in late November (links were in original) —
Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data.
Besides the temperature records, the other thing that needs to be reconstructed is any and all primary, secondary, and post-secondary education materials that claim any kind of scientific basis for the assertions that the past few decades have seen historically outsized global warming, and that human activity has been the major cause of it. There is none.