Climate Data Review: Fox Guarding Henhouse

Amazingly, the science is so settled and the data so picture perfect that leading climate alarmists want a do over

The two most influential advisory bodies on climate change are planning independent reviews of their research in an attempt to regain public trust after revelations about errors and the suppression of data.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to appoint an independent team to examine its procedures after admitting having made errors that exaggerated the severity of the impact of global warming.

The Met Office, which supplies the global temperature trends used by the IPCC, has proposed that an international group of scientists re-examine 160 years of temperature data. The Met Office proposal is a tacit admission that its previous reports on such trends have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

Question: why only 160 years? Why only look at data from the end of the Little Ice Age? I’m sure you have your own answer, and mine would be “because the published charts and graphs will make it look like the world just started warming around the time industrialization really started popping, which means they can still blame Mankind.”

Second question: is it not crazy to have two of the most biased organizations which have a pro-AGW agenda in charge?

The problem is not just the temperature data, but the notion that changes in climate are a direct result of Man’s actions and lifestyle. Even without Climategate, without the numerous “errors” in the latest IPCC report, and all the other issues that have cropped up, it still comes down to a simple equation: is the post Little Ice Age warming caused mostly/solely by Mankind? Why is this warming trend different from the numerous ones that have occurred during the Earth’s 4 billion year history?

There is no doubt that Man does play some small piece in the puzzle. Agriculture and landfills certainly release greenhouse gasses, as do 6 billion humans. We can work on the landfills, but, will we cut down on our food production, not to mention humans? Certainly, that is what some climate alarmists, extreme envirowackos who have adopted the globull warming mantle for their own nefarious purposes, advocate.

There is also no doubt that the temperature records are flawed (alarmists are covering their eyes, if not spitting on their computer screens about now), since the number of monitoring stations have not only gone down tremendously over the last decade, but quite a few of them are located in sub-optimal locations which give improper readings. Stations out in the countryside, where the most accurate readings will occur, have been heavily reduced. Much of the data sets are reliant on stations located in areas where the Urban Island Affect is in full force.

And, it still comes down to the basic premise for those who think feel that Mankind is at fault: prove it. Of course, this little inquiry into the data will take up to 3 years, so, plenty of time for alarmists to do what they do best: deny reality and blame everything (hot, cold, wet, dry) on anthropogenic global warming.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Climate Data Review: Fox Guarding Henhouse”

  1. Reasic says:

    Question: why only 160 years? Why only look at data from the end of the Little Ice Age? I’m sure you have your own answer, and mine would be “because the published charts and graphs will make it look like the world just started warming around the time industrialization really started popping, which means they can still blame Mankind.”

    I think these statements really help demonstrate the problems with your approach to this subject. You see something you’re not sure about, and then, rather than looking into it, you make assumptions that jive with your predetermined conspiracy theories about climate scientists and their plot to create a socialist world order or something to that effect. You were a simple Google search away from finding out that about 150-160 years ago was when the first methodical thermometer-based records began. But no, don’t let facts get in the way of your conspiracies.

    is it not crazy to have two of the most biased organizations which have a pro-AGW agenda in charge?

    This also allows some window into your lack of knowledge about the IPCC and other scientific organizations. What, specifically, makes the IPCC or the Met Office “biased”, and what do they gain from that stance?

    Why is this warming trend different from the numerous ones that have occurred during the Earth’s 4 billion year history?

    No natural events have occurred which could explain recent temperature increases. And yet, we’ve had CO2 levels increase, due to human activity, to levels not seen in around 800,000 years or so, in a very short timeframe.

    http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e201127906f08628a4-pi

    Stations out in the countryside, where the most accurate readings will occur, have been heavily reduced. Much of the data sets are reliant on stations located in areas where the Urban Island Affect is in full force.

    This, too, has been completely discredited. The urban stations are checked with surrounding rural stations to ensure that this effect is negated. Also, recent studies have shown that, if anything, the effect on station data from surfacestations.org has been primarily negative, not positive.

    And, it still comes down to the basic premise for those who think feel that Mankind is at fault: prove it.

    It HAS been proven. I keep telling you that, but you blow it off. It’s in the WGI IPCC report. You’ve found small typos in other reports, but have provided no rebuttal to the science in the WGI report, which is where the proof of that claim resides. There are detection and attribution studies, spectroscopy studies, as well as a number of other research efforts that have contributed to the theory that human activity is primarily at fault, and you have not addressed a single one of them.

  2. Otter says:

    Odd. I went to read the first comment and got a big, Blank bit of nonsense.

  3. John Ryan says:

    Of course the temp records are “flawed” perfection will not be found in this world. And Mankind is only one factor BUT the rate of temp increase has never been greater. Also there is no other known explanation for this increase. But Teach at least #1 you are now admitting that the temp is going UP and #2 that man has at least some influence over the rise. And of course the Sun is still in a dim low output phase ( which is a bit surprising since the temps are going UP) and of course volcanic activity is normal so THAT can’t be the reason temps go up. Any bets on the size of the Arctic ice cap being normal ? or smaller ? Any bets on whether 2010 will be hotter or cooler than the 100 year average for the planet ?

  4. Reasic says:

    That’s your problem, Otter. You look at science, and you see nonsense. Then, you look at nonsense from deniers, and it makes PERFECT sense to you. You live in opposite world. 😛

Bad Behavior has blocked 6000 access attempts in the last 7 days.