New Global Warming Alarmist Problem: “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder”

So, now, those of us who don’t buy global warming alarmism are to be blamed for alarmists’ stress.

Andrew Stuttaford (The Corner) has the details

 Just when you think that the misery that climate change is bringing in its wake can get no worse, there is this.

Grist reports:

…From depression to substance abuse to suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, growing bodies of research in the relatively new field of psychology of global warming suggest that climate change will take a pretty heavy toll on the human psyche as storms become more destructive and droughts more prolonged. For your everyday environmentalist, the emotional stress suffered by a rapidly changing Earth can result in some pretty substantial anxieties….

Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. — and co-author of the National Wildlife Federation’s report — calls this emotional reaction “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” a term she coined to describe the mental anguish that results from preparing for the worst, before it actually happens.

There is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable case to be made that man may be contributing to the way that our ever-changing climate changes. That’s one thing, but how some choose to express their belief in that proposition can be something altogether, well let’s just say, less reasonable.

…and here I thought it would be about alarmists trying to process the sixteen-year pause and all their data problems.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

More on temperature data “adjustment”

Walter Dnes (WUWT) examined American temperature “adjustment” by the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network), and found that said adjustments were not just annual, but monthly as well (i.e., different months were “adjusted” differently).

Among his more interesting findings…

  • Winter months were adjusted upward more so than summer months, since 1970 (it’s quite possible their could have been a correlation between average monthly temperature and adjustment, but Dnes didn’t examine that). Dnes noted that “talk about winters in the USA getting warmer may be an artifact of the adjustments.”
  • Since 1970, the adjustment slope in annual terms is over 1 degree Celsius. In other words, when anyone talks about warming over the last forty-plus years, 1C of it comes from humans alright – human manipulation of the data
  • Annual adjustment for the 1930s (the decade the gave us the Dust Bowl and the most massive dust storm in American history), were over half a degree Celsius downward. As Dnes notes, “one wonders if this an attempt to disappear the heat waves and droughts of ‘The Dirty Thirties’ in a manner similar to attempts to disappear the Medieval Warm Period. It’s hard to talk about ‘the hottest ever’, when there’s ‘inconvenient data’ around, showing that the 1930s were hotter.”
  • Since 1970, the number of actual data points for temperature has fallen. In fact, we have 20% fewer raw data points today than in 1970. Yet final data points are unchanged, meaning there’s quite a bit of estimated data, a problem I’ve discussed earlier.
  • From about 1895 to 1930, “final” data points are well above raw data points (in 1896, the raw data points were about half the number of final data points

There have been more than a few posts here on the various and sundry problems with temperature data thanks to global warming alarmists. Dnes’ analysis is just the latest example.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

What is happening with USHCN temperature data?

Over the weekend, what started as an argument among global warming skeptics became a dramatic indictment of temperature reporting from the United States Historic Climate Network.

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That) and Judith Curry (Climate Etc.) provide the details on Steve Goddard’s initial attempt to claim that a large swath of temperature “raw” data was in fact estimations. Watts is particularly self-aware in acknowledging why he had trouble with Goddard’s assertions, while Curry ties it to the underlying data problems.

Both then get to the meat of the matter: Paul Homewood’s revelation that data in not one, but two locations were “adjusted” to create a warming trend of 1-2 degrees that never shows up in the actual data.

Meanwhile, Watts also reveals this stunner: as many as one in four stations “reporting” weather data are in fact shut down, and “reporting” estimated figures derived from neighboring – and in theory still operating – stations.

Curry – who does not consider herself a skeptic on global warming, but is rare in that she does not simply dismiss those who are – summed up with this is so important:

This incident is another one that challenges traditional notions of expertise. From a recent speech by President Obama:

“I mean, I’m not a scientist either, but I’ve got this guy, John Holdren, he’s a scientist,” Obama added to laughter. “I’ve got a bunch of scientists at NASA and I’ve got a bunch of scientists at EPA.”

Who all rely on the data prepared by his bunch of scientists at NOAA.

…and if that data is problematic, all of those scientists have a serious problem.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

They did it again: global warming alarmists caught politicizing the science

It’s easy to claim “consensus” when you suppress dissenting voices (Times of London):

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

These were the exact words of the unnamed “scientist” (yes, I used scare quotes) who rejected the piece:

Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics (UK sp) media side.

Oh yes. Heaven forbid we get oversimplified claims from the media. Oh, wait.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-seven examples of data manipulationerrorssuppressionand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009which is now about four and a half years ago…and here I thought they were slowing down.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Will Western Antarctic ice really flood our shores? No.

Would it surprise you to learn that the global warming alarmists fouled up again? Me neither, but this time its the legacy media that deserves the blame.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-six examples of data manipulationerrorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009which is now about four and a half  years ago. This time, however, it’s a matter of the scientific studies cited being grossly exaggerated and badly misinterpreted.

The two studies were published by Geophysical Research Letters and Science respectively. Together, they have been reported as evidence that Antarctic ice will melt to such an extent that sea levels will rise by as much as 4 feet, and that such melting is “inevitable.” The only silver lining is that such melting could take centuries (or perhaps a millennium), but that didn’t stop the Governor of California from claiming two of his state’s biggest airports will be under water (Watts Up With That).

Larry Hamlin has a post on WUWT debunking the media hype, but I thought it would be best to read the studies myself to see what they actually said. The decision was an eye opener.

First, the GRL paper, which from a methodological perspective, does the exact opposite of what was claimed. It did not predict future ice behavior, but rather mapped an equation to past ice data for several glaciers in Western Antarctica (going back no more than forty years) and as an aside, used it to model temperature change.

The Science paper is even narrower, looking at only one Western Antarctic glacier (Thwaites). Furthermore, the authors of this paper provide neither their data nor their equations for their model (the GRL authors did both), instead only mentioning a melt coefficient. The projections they use for ice melting (and projected sea level rise) are only for the effects of the Thwaites glacier – meaning any countering effects from the rest of the continent were not considered (the authors themselves acknowledged that Antarctic ice as a whole is expected to increase, but only used it to gauge effects on Thwaites itself).

To be fair, the authors admit to the limitations of their work (emphasis added):

Our simulations are not coupled to a global climate model to provide forcing nor do they include an ice-shelf cavity-circulation model to derive melt rates. Few if any such fully coupled models presently exist. As such, our simulations do not constitute a projection of future sea level in response to projected climate forcing.

In other words, the paper explicitly rejects doing what legacy media reports claim it does.

How bad has the alarmist media been on this? This New York Times story even throws up the ozone layer as a reason – something neither study even mentions.

Keep in mind, Antarctic ice as a whole just reached a thirty-year high (WUWT). As for the western Antarctic, it’s had a history of ups and downs (WUWT), in no small part due to a recently discovered under-ice volcano (WUWT).

In other words, don’t believe the hype.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Michael Mann reminds me why I’m backing Ken Cuccinelli

Over the last year, I’ve been on a bit of a roller coaster regarding Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli. His waffling on tax increases soured me, badly, but his education reform plan grudgingly won me back. Still, I could hardly say I’m enthusiastic.

Then Michael Mann decided to whine about Cuccinelli’s investigation of his (Mann’s) time at UVA…and sudddenly I remembered why I liked Cuccinelli so much in the first place.

Mann’s column (Richmond Times-Dispatch) was largely refuted by Christopher Monckton (Watts Up With That), but there were some comments by the former that slipped past Monckton without challenge. So I figured I’d do some mopping up.

The first problem comes when Mann shifts away from the ad hominem attacks on his critics and actually tries to defend himself and his “hockey stick” – a reference to his historical graph that claimed temperatures were relatively stable until about 50 years .

Despite Monckton’s rambling attack, the hockey stick most certainly has not been disproved. The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed our research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006.

Note the date on that review: 2006. That’s before the Climategate leak that revealed “Mike’s Nature Trick,” before Mann himself desperately tried to explain a problem with using tree ring data as a proxy, before others noticed serious problems with it. In the history of climatology, 2006 might as well be 1006.

The only other of Mann’s claim that Monckton missed was this pair (emphasis added):

In what is the most personally offensive part of Monckton’s letter, he says that references to climate “ ‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ would be illegal in Europe as being anti-Jewish, racialist hate-speech.” This is particularly troubling to me both because I am Jewish and because it does not make any sense. No one is attempting to subpoena or prosecute climate change deniers. We are simply trying to make sure the public understands what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe is happening.

The “overwhelming majority” line (typical of global warming alarmists) took a bad hit earlier this month, but it is the previous claim that requires more attention. Perhaps Mann himself does not know, but Richard Parncutt, Professor at the University of Graz (Australia) has not only called for “deniers” to be prosecuted, but executed (Andrew Bolt). From what I can tell, Parncutt has since reversed course on his Final Solution, but it was yet another example of alarmists becoming unhinged. As for Mann himself, the folks at WUWT have been keeping track of his invective and nastiness (thought I should note he steers clear of a Final Solution).

In the end, I get the feeling that Mann, knowing that Cuccinelli is trailing in the polls, is taking the opportunity to kick him when he’s down. For me, that’s all the more reason to back Ken Cuccinelli for Governor.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

About those tree rings…

Michael Mann made his mark in global warming alarmism with the use of dendrochronological data (a.k.a. tree-ring data) as a proxy for temperatures going back over 1000 years. He has clung to it despite its obvious ignorance of the Medieval Warm Period (to say nothing of how it deviated from recent history so much he had to truncate it from his analysis – hence the term “Mike’s Nature Trick”).

Well, as it turns out, the tree-ring data his a problematic bias (WUWT):

Basically, older trees grow slower, and that mimics the temperature signal paleo researchers like Mann look for. Unless you correct for this issue, you end up with a false temperature signal, like a hockey stick in modern times. Separating a valid temperature signal from the natural growth pattern of the tree becomes a larger challenge with this correction.

Trees that grow slower create lower temperature proxies, and thus can mask higher temperatures in periods like the MWP.

Yet another nail in alarmism’s coffin.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

About that global warming “consensus”…it doesn’t exist

Organization Studies has released a peer-reviewed survey of geoscientists and engineers (Forbes, via WUWT) and found the global warming alarmists’ claims of a “consensus” to be way off the mark.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

I’ll leave it to the reader to define “strong”, but 51% of those surveyed either believed Nature is the dominant controller of climate (24%) or refused to say the matter is settled one way or another (27%). All of them (plus an additional 5%) have no use for the alarmists’ insistence that disaster awaits without massive carbon regulation.

Cross-posted to RWL

National Climatic Data Center caught “adjusting” past climate data

Joseph D’Aleo provides the details at WUWT (emphasis added):

[The National Climatic Data Center’s] adjustments made the dust bowl period cooler, while post 1995 had no adjustments applied. This results in a temperature trend that is steeper because the past is cooler than the present. The only problem is that it isn’t what the data actually recorded then.

I think maybe we need to coin a new term for NOAA NCDC – ‘dust bowl deniers’.  Yes it appears there is man made warming underway but the men are in Asheville, North Carolina at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

The particular victim in this case was New York City, which suddenly had a cooler 1930s than any survivor of that decade would remember.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-five examples of data manipulationerrorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009just under three and a half years agoand they just keep on coming.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

More defectors from the “consensus”

Remember when I noted that three scientists who were part of a paper decreeing a “consensus” on global warming told Watts Up With That that their positions had been misrepresented?

Well, Andrew at Popular Technology found four more who took issue with their classifications. Ironically, the one most sympathetic to AGW theory (Dr. Richard Tol) was the nastiest to one of the “consensus” paper’s authors (Dana Nuccitelli), telling Nuccitelli, “I think your data are a load of crap.”

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulationerrorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009just under three and a half years ago…and they just keep on coming.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Whoops! Scientists ask out of the global warming “consensus”

The latest attempt of the global warming alarmists to silence debate – by screaming, “Consensus!” – has hilariously come a-cropper.

As usual, the good folks at Watts Up With That have the details, from three paper authors who take great issue with the characterization of their papers as endorsing global warming.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulationerrorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009just under three and a half years ago.

More to the point, they don’t seem capable of stopping.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Marcott’s update to his global warming paper: never mind everything I said

Shaun Marcott – the latest fellow to claim he’s discovered “unprecedented” warming in recent years – made a stunning admission to Steve McIntyre over the weekend. Ross McKittrick has the details in the Financial Post:

Meanwhile, in a private email to McIntyre, Marcott made a surprising statement. In the paper, they had reported doing an alternate analysis of their proxy data that yielded a much smaller 20th-century uptick, but they said the difference was “probably not robust,” which implied that the uptick was insensitive to changes in methodology, and was therefore reliable. But in his email to McIntyre, Marcott said the reconstruction itself is not robust in the 20th century: a very different thing. When this became public, the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ.

It finally appeared over the weekend, and contains a remarkable admission: “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

In other words, the most recent part of the data – the very part Marcott et al claimed “proved” the dramatic warming – was junk.

McKittrick also details how Marcott redated ice core tops (if that sounds like fudging data to you, that’s because it is) and grafted current temperature data (which can show variations annually at worst) on top of the past data reconstruction (which smoothed out centuries of variations).

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-three examples of data manipulation, errorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago.

I am amazed that anyone still believes this stuff.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Exploratory Committee Announcement – UPDATED

Later today, I will be filing the appropriate paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to establish an exploratory committee to run for the United States Senate in 2014 against incumbent Mark Warner.  Just as in 2006 George Allen failed to draw a top Democratic challenger, Senator Warner has yet to see Republicans field a first-tier challenger to oppose him.  In the absence of another candidate stepping forward, I find myself being thrust forward to accept the task of representing the concerns of middle-class families like mine in the political arena of ideas.

To say that Mark Warner’s first-term in the Senate has been underwhelming and without notable accomplishment would be an understatement.  Aside from lending his name to a couple of the countless (and typically meaningless) bipartisan “Gang of [insert varying number of senators here]” groups, he has done nothing.  He has not lifted a finger to reduce the tax and debt burdens on our families.  He has not put forward solutions to alleviate our crushing traffic congestion.

What he has done is vote to approve Obamacare which has only led to increased insurance premiums and skyrocketing regulations that threaten to strangle the best health care system in the world.

Mark Warner does not understand the plight of the middle class.  How could we expect him to do so?  After all, he got rich early in life trading on inside information gained as a congressional staffer, a practice that is now illegal.  Ever since then, all he has sought to do is get elected to the Senate — not because he wanted to do something, but because he wanted to be someone.

That is not the kind of senator that Virginians need.  With your prayers and support, we can stun the political establishment just like what happened in 2006.

Keep your eyes on

More to come….

UPDATE:  Apparently, the FEC does not accept campaign filings on APRIL FOOL’S DAY.

Steve McIntyre sends another hockey stick alarmist to the penalty box

Steve McIntyre is the mathematician who destroyed Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph (which supposedly proved global warming) in the last decade. This year, he takes aim at the latest nonsense, from Marcott et al. On his blog (Climate Audit), he explains how the timing of  the data was manipulated – in one case, a dataset was moved over 1000 years – to get the desired effect.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-two examples of data manipulation, errorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

FOIA (the Climategate whistleblower) reveals what caring about the poor really means

Watts Up With That found in his inbox the password to a slew of Climategate emails, courtesy of the anonymous whistleblower (who took the pseudonym Mr. FOIA).

Humor and political schadenfreude aside (well, almost – I particular like the part where “Reviewer B.” admits, “I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!”), FOIA explains his actions – and in so doing schools the lefties on what compassion for the impoverished really is (emphasis added):

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.  The Republicans didn’t plot this.  USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK.  There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to  garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary.  I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never.  Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.  The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.  Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”.  The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script.  We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life.  It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc.  deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit.  No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.  don’t have that luxury.  The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try.  I couldn’t morally afford inaction.  Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

We may never know who this person is, but I think James Delingpole had it right in calling him “the man who saved the world”…

…unless Mr. FOIA is actually Ms. FOIA, of course. Either way, this is truly a heroic person.

Meanwhile, WUWT continues the fight by continuing to take apart the latest hockey-stick nonsense (Easterbrook and Eschenbach).

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Another busted hockey stick

The latest attempt by the global warming alarmists to make the Medieval Warming Period disappear came into the crosshairs of Watts Up With That – and ended up looking a lot like the gel torsos on Deadliest Warrior.

First up is Don J. Easterbrook, who notices something about the data…

Eighty percent of the source data sites were marine, so temperatures from 80% of the data set used in this paper record ocean water temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures. Thus, they may reflect temperature changes from ocean upwelling, changes in ocean currents, or any one of a number of ocean variations not related to atmospheric climates. This in itself means that the Marcott et al. temperatures are not a reliable measure of changing atmospheric climate.

Making matters worse, one of the land datasets was a tree ring reconstruction from none other than Michael Mann himself (he of “Mike’s Nature Trick”). Keep in mind, Mann has already admitted to errors in his tree ring data.

Meanwhile, David Middleton reveals another problem with the data – time intervals. He graphically explains why using old data that measures by 140-years-plus along with new annual data can cause problems.

Back to the penalty box.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Will Michael Mann never learn?

The latest desperate attempt by global warming alarmists to seize the political initiative fell apart once again – due to exposure to the outside world.

Michael Mann, he of the Nature Trick, is trying to claim that the temperature models really haven’t been exposed as bunk after all. There are only two problems: he uses the wrong set of data, and he stops in 2005.

Steve MacIntyre has the details (Climate Audit or WUWT).

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-one examples of data manipulation,errorsand other shenanigans from global warming alarmistsand that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject sinceClimategate broke in November of 2009 just under three and a half years ago.

I am stunned that Mann really didn’t think he would get caught.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

NASA gets caught fudging the temperature record

Randall Hoven (American Thinker, h/t SDA) caught NASA “adjusting” past data again:

A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA’s web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its “updates to analysis,” but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.

In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

C’mon, NASA, did you really think we wouldn’t notice?

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmists, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009 just under three years ago.

Keep this in mind the next time someone screams “hottest (day/week/month/year) on record.”

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

The Big Lewandowski

Australian global warming alarmist Stephan Lewandowski decided he’d had enough of people challenging him with statistical analysis and data issues. So he is drafting a paper that concludes anyone who disagrees with him is crazy.

Unfortunately for him, statistical analysis and data issues have felled the report before it even made the rounds of the compliant MSM.

Among other things, it appears Lewandowski based the title of his report – the ever colorful “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science” – on the responses of ten people (WUWT). Making matters worse, it appears that there were at least two different versions of the survey, which is an absolute no-no (WUWT) – not to be confused with different answer paths within one survey, which is far from unusual, or segmented surveys for different population groups, which is OK so long as it’s strictly controlled. Finally, Lewandowski’s “survey” was conducted online, with no measures to prevent multiple answers from the same person.

In short, it’s a statistical disaster, and I’m being kind; it certainly looks like an attempt to skew towards a desired outcome.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we are now at a total of forty examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmism, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject over the last two and a half years.

This one just deals with numerical fudging to slander opponents, rather than manipulating climate data itself, so it doesn’t count.

You can go back to obsessing about Charlotte now.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Hiding the decline, again

You may have seen reports that last month in America was “the hottest July on record.” Well, Anthony Watts (WUWT) noticed it, too, and went to work trying to see if, for once, the global warming alarmists got it right.

Guess what? They didn’t.

In fact, Watts noticed a temperature two-step that in the old days would have snowed the populace (damn right, pun intended). Instead, it’s just the latest incident of alarmist fudging exposed.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we are now at thirtynine examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmism, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject over the last two and a half years.

First off, Watts noticed that July 1936 (the actual hottest July on record) isn’t what it used to be anymore:

And with all the adjustments that have been going on, which 1930′s are we really talking about? The real one or the adjusted one? NASA GISS uses NCDC adjusted data, which according to this graph from Steve Goddard, suggests there’s been a whole lot of adjusting going on.

The graph below shows the almost two degree US upwards adjustment trend being applied by USHCN between the raw thermometer data and the published monthly data.


The adjustments they are making are greater than the claimed trend, meaning that all man made US warming is occurring inside ORNL and GISS computers.

Read that last line again: “The adjustments they are making are greater than the claimed trend, meaning that all man made US warming is occurring inside ORNL and GISS computers.”


Of course, rewriting the past is not enough, and Watts also finds that the NOAA is refusing to use its new USCRN network for temperature reports. Why not? Here’s why not:

Using the old network, NOAA says the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 77.6°F

Using the NOAA USCRN data, the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 75.5°F

The difference between the old problematic network and new USCRN is 2.1°F cooler.

This puts July 2012, according to the best official climate monitoring network in the USA at 1.9°F below the 77.4°F July 1936 USA average temperature in the NOAA press release today, not a record by any measure.

So…”adjust” the past so it looks cooler, use the inferior measurement network so the present looks hotter, and Heston presto: you have a new “record” and a perfect alarmist press release!

Nice try, fellows, but that’s not going to work anymore.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Steve McIntyre exposes another global warming alarmist fudge

Steve McIntyre has spent nearly a decade revealing the mathematical and statistical mistakes – or worse – of the global warming alarmists. In his Climate Audit blog, he exposes yet another example of how the alarmists chose to ignore (again) data that refused to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory.

McIntyre details the data manipulation and deception in his Climate Audit blog (via WUWT).

Had their Yamal-Urals regional chronology had been in accordance with their previous results, I am completely convinced that they would have used it in Briffa et al 2008 and/or their October 2009 online article without a second thought. My surmise is that the apparent failure of the (still withheld) Yamal-Urals regional chronology to accord with their expectations caused CRU not to use it in Briffa et al 2008. I realize that this is a harsh statement, but it’s what I think.


those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we are now at thirtyeight examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmism, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject over the last two and a half years.

In this case, though, not only did they ignore inconvenient data, but as McIntyre shows, they were fairly dishonest about it, throwing up multiple and contradictory reasons that he (McIntyre) easily filets.

Will they never learn?

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal