If AGW Is Real, Why Do They Have To Lie?
Posted on November 16, 2008
Perhaps some of the climahysterics can explain how this occurred
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr. James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerized temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
This is what the Climahysterics call science. Cooking the books. Falsifying the data. Making it up as they go. And NASA is not the only ones. The UN IPCC recently came up with some wonky data to continue their Chicken Littleism, “Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008…”
Don’t forget these two quotes from Al Gore, who is, of course, one of the main leaders in the AGW movement
- “In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
- “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler. “
The AGW crowd in a nutshell. Also, add in that they rarely practice what they preach. Like tax increases, that is always for the other guy/gal.
» Filed Under Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, Government ethics/corruption, News, Propaganda, Revisionism, Science/pseudo-science, Socialism, Taxes, UN, environmentalism
Trackback URL
Comments
23 Responses to “If AGW Is Real, Why Do They Have To Lie?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Meanwhile, the Arctic ice cap gets smaller each year, the Greenland ice cap is melting, and glaciers are retreating world-wide. If not global warming, then what?
Then tell the liberals to stop driving their big big cars.
Take away the “twists” from the stories …. stories of Greenland ice cap melting… and include that the Greenland ice cap is both growing and melting… and has been “forever”. The key is — satellite photos show it is growing faster than melting?… if so, then the “twisted media” is cooking up evidence, twisted so the public misunderstands the reality.
Ditto on other arenas…. take away the media’s “twist” or misrepresentation and we have the facts.
I call bull on Virgil’s “the Arctic ice cap gets smaller each year, the Greenland ice cap is melting, and glaciers are retreating world-wide.”
Let’s check it.
Comparison between Arctic sea ice extent of Nov. 16th, 2007 and Nov. 16th, 2008.
It’s not difficult to see the difference because that’s 30% more ice this year.
how come we cant buzz this story up on yahoo?/ is it cause they dont want us too?
Y’know, I’m a global warming skeptic, but don’t you guys realize that you’re as hysterical as the AGW proponents? Come on - this is an embarrassing error, but not an intentional one. It’s stupid, not criminal. It’ll be corrected. That’s why nobody cares. And it’s not lying - viciously mischaracterizing it is proof that you’re not rational.
Calling bull on Virgil (pt 2)
Alaska glaciers growing first time in 250 years link.
You know Bill after GISS pulled down their last goof, they replaced it with revised numbers showing an abnormal heating of the Arctic.
You see they didn’t want to retract the meta story - [ie: that Oct marks an end to the decade long global cooling] so they “found” new hot spots, carefully spaced out on the globe that almost exactly compensate for the discovered mistaken hot spot in Siberia.
Their new map shows the Arctic ocean, Canada’s northern territory, and Australia, as new bright red temperature anomilies in October.
Of course none of it jibes with the reality of record ocean ice up or growing glaciers, but it does fit the AGW narrative.
What do you call that?
More then an embarassing error in my book.
It’s unreasonable to use extent data for November in any year, because this month is the time when Arctic ice is beginning to expand. It’s not a reliable measure from one year to the next.
The data for, e.g., the month of January is more representative because the ice is around its max extent during that month.
The movie at
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/all.final.1978-2006.mov
will give a good idea of it.
“Come on - this is an embarrassing error, but not an intentional one. It’s stupid, not criminal. It’ll be corrected. That’s why nobody cares. And it’s not lying - viciously mischaracterizing it is proof that you’re not rational.”
Then why has the GISS data been systematically “adjusted” over the course of years to show the AGW results Hansen predicted? Done according to some formula/methodology that they won’t release, but isn’t random, and isn’t consistent. Why is GISS data consistently at odds with the temp data from other sources? Once is an error. Twice coincidence. Three times (or more) criminal when you consider what’s at stake.
“Not rational” is Obama’s energy plan to combat AGW/Climate Change that will “neccessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket, but Americans will just have to understand it’s for their own long-term welfare”. “Not rational” is offering Al Gore the “Energy Czar” job.
Are you guy really this uneducated in science, or is this just a political rant?? hoping to influence the gullible?
Political evidence and scientific evidence are not equivalent!
I do not believe that humans are causing global warming (if it is real) but that the sun is getting hotter, yes maybe Co2 levels have risen but not enough to drastically affect the earth.
1) The trend in global warming is increase over TIME. Therefor any one year that is colder or warmer than the year before does not completely wipe out the trend.
2) record snowfalls may not indicate colder temperatures. Many times it is really cold (ie -20C to -40) and there is no snow fall; however if it warms up (2to -5C) then snow falls. If these regions are normally cold without snow, the record snowfall could indicate higher temeratures.
The guys saying this aren’t driving cars, they ride in jets.
Follow the money peeps. Follow the money.
Bazillions of dollars ride on “alternative” energys which won’t cause..ahem..global warming. Now true, we should be developing
these alternates anyways but through a free market system where a CEO isn’t legislating how you live till its done, as a politician would. As someone else pointed out (and credit to them) we didn’t legislate out horses so cars could take over, it sort of happened thru a gradual phase out by itself.
In order for out enemy to prevail our economy must be totally destroyed first and
global warming is the trojan horse to do it.
Not that we haven’t been doing a good job ourselves lately with applied greed:) LOL
To Katie…over the last 1.8 million years or so there have been 14 ice ages, with many many mini ice ages coming and going in one or two hundred years. The 1500’s and the North Sea freezing over for example. Somethings gotta melt all that ice don’t ya think? Whether we delay one or more ice ages by a hundred?, a thousand years? or not by our actions its still going to happen naturally. In fact if we launch an all out attack on all our enemies with thermo nukes we could save the earth too, by increasing the albedo from all the duct kicked up and smoke from burning cities such as
Mecca etc. etc. So that is also another solution and one we can accomplish in an hour or two. In fact given Israel and iran..we might just see a global warming solution in our lifetime:)
The one question I always ask, but nobody can answer: Just exactly what IS the “correct” temperature supposed to be?
All we have to work with is historical data that indicates trends, but we have no really long-term (over 5,000 years) of accurate information that would begin to show the earth’s naturally cyclic temperature swings. It would be fascinating to have such data and then try various correlations to other phenomenon (sunspots, volcanoes, plate tectonics, nerby supernovae, etc.)
And what about geothermal possibilities? Could the earth’s crust be thinning slightly in random spots to allow some of the heat from our molten core to radiate to the surface? And what causes the magnetic poles to periodically “flip”, as magnetic deposits in rock strata indicate?
My point is this: We worry too much about things that we don’t fully understand and probably can’t change.
Examples: Atmospheric Pollution? - a rash of volcanic eruptions could do more harm in a few days than mankind has done in centuries! Meteor strikes? - sizable hits would trigger changes that could even destroy the atmosphere as we know it!
This looks like an honest mistake, especially given the long term temperature trends. You can’t tell me the weather in Wisconsin hasn’t been changing. The odds are that the world will study the problem to death while oceans rise and crop yields diminish. I’m betting on an engineered solution to the problem that frames the solution as a paid service, rather than one involving self-sacrifice. We’ll either alter the atmosphere’s reflectivity or the oceans ability to metabolise CO2 via plankton.
I believe this is all ridiculous. Avid, conscious, and responsible concern for our environment is one thing — judging whether or not we’re in the midst of a global warming phenomenon caused by man’s industrialized actions is of little use when comparing to climate trends. The fact is that we have maybe 150 years of “reliable” climate data on which to predict lasting global climate changes. We simply don’t have enough data. The Earth is always adjusting its climate over thousands (and millions) of years. Our entire species has been here for just a fraction of Earth’s lifetime. We need to consider the “whole” timeframe — not just our lifetimes. Intelligence and rational, cautious decision making is needed not these pathetically, emotionally-driven assertions.
The problem here is:
People Will Believe Anything Because They Are Afraid It Might Be True.
This is the answer to religion, marketing, politics, mass media, and global warming.
When you add free speech into the equation and venues of speech such as the internet where anyone can add their opinion, then it becomes impossible to actually know the truth unless your the one out there making all the measurements for one hundred years running. Data can be rounded, generalized, and edited to suit one’s purpose. Doctrine can be twisted with the addition of perspective. I personally believe in global warming because as an American I like to believe there is a strong motive for it’s publicity in our news stations. The repercussions of our actions to thwart it will either prevent the continuance of global warming, or help our economy become energy dependent.
I am writing my representatives in Washington to cut NASA’s funding. There is nothing worthwhile in NASA’s present or future projects worth the costs (except for putting satellites in earth’s orbit).
I suggest you do the same.
The lack of science education here is enormous. I did research in tree ring/climate relationships. Climate can be reconstructed from tree ring data with good reliability. Variability in climate is similar to ‘white noise’ in electronics and it is the Signal we use to carry information for phones, tv, radio. the Signal to noise ratio is what people here seem most ignorant about. Any one year or location on the globe may be in variance to the trend, but the trend over the last 150 years is radically increasing global temperature. NASA’s earth satellite research has made great progress in our understanding of geology, earth chemistry, archeology, etc. The Phoenix mission was a fantastic success (I live near U of A Tucson, AZ ). Let’s not throw that potential out for political sniping!
Charlie, I think you hit a big point: warming for 150 years. Which started right at the end of the Little Ice Age. It has been going on, and one year does not a trend make.
However, those who believe in anthropogenic global warming will take any minor uptick in the temperature as a trend. And, as far as NASA goes, yes, they have done some great work. Yet, now they are being led by a wacko AGW nut, and have become too politicized themselves.
Just FYI, I linked to your post from my article where I reveal the true causes of global warming: hot bodies and Muslims.