Posted on 02/10/2010 7:08:46 PM PST by neverdem
In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on What’s up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdom’slatest analysis of Ken Stewart at his ‘kenskingdom’ blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.
GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a century’s worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.
Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.
The process of adjusting raw data to create a “homogenised” final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenisation process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick” to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.
Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: “Wow- when they adjust, they don’t muck around!”
GISS combines GHCN data from all urban stations applying the same inexplicable two degree temperature increase as shown below to reveal the shocking disparity between ‘raw’ data and the ‘cooked’ GISS data:...
(Excerpt) Read more at climategate.com ...
The greatest scam in history.
I wish I could believe that, but I can't. These boys are not dumb and anyone with an ounce of brains could see through this hoax a long time ago. They were all well aware of the tens of thousands of scientists on record as skeptics of this drivel. No, these "leaders" just want to hold on to power and don't want to miss the train and be left at the station. <
Sluts.
Probably because they are still trying to grab off total societal control and some trillions of dollars(2009 value) of resources. They will hang on to absurdity so long as it is possible to make money from it and so long as governments are trying to pass Cap&Trade and other scams like that there is value in hanging on to the most blatant and obvious of lies. And our government is frantically trying.
Now NASA and GISS are shown to have faked upward two degrees worth of Australia data to reverse cooling into recent global warming.
They will be intransigent so long as there is a chance they can get what they want from government, control of all the money and everyone's behaviour.
Global Historical Climatology Network
Actually the question is not between fraud and incompetent programming, but whether between scientific fraud and scientific naïveté. Climate modelers should (and some do) understand that because they are dealing with a non-linear dynamical system, long-term prediction is impossible (the popularizing term for the phenomenon is 'chaotic dynamics') and that the coarser the discretization used in the simulation the worse even short-term predictions will be.
It's not a matter of competent or incompetent programming, but of programs, no matter the correctness of the code or the sophistication of the methods used, being unable to predict over the long term.
The "weather isn't climate" refrain suggests that deep down, there is a degree of scientific naïveté underlying the whole thing: they seem to assume that the short-term variability of weather is statistical noise, when, in fact, it is the short-term dynamics of the system they are modeling. If you have a non-linear dynamical system (weather) and make another by taking averages of the variable over fixed-length time intervals (climate) the new dynamical system is still non-linear, still exhibits chaotic dynamics, and is still not feasible to predict long-term.
I have a colleague, who, for a while, was taken in, until he went to a conference on the subject and saw how really bad the mathematical models being used are. Bad models usually are the result neither of fraud nor of outright stupidity, but of not understanding something fundamental about the nature of mathematical models or about the system being modeled.
This is why I've thought the whole thing was a crock from long before the fact that they 'modelers' have been engaging in fraud came to light.
Darwin in the west and this “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” in the east.
Very SMALL techniques used....lower the old temperatures,...raise the recent temperatures....
bump
It’s about the Carbon Trade....read up on Former Senator Tim Wirth...who is now president of the UN Foundation.
See #31.
From the UK’s Telegraph, which states that Al Gore will soon be the world’s first carbon credit billionaire fronm crooked government money:
Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
Some of the threads back several weeks ago had links to the technical papers.
That is alos in the Skeptics Hand Book ...that is at the JoNova Website.
Finally! The newly revised and edited ClimateGate Timeline (1.1)
Addendum to post #35.
NEW IN THIS VERSION: Carbon economics and data fiddling kick in soon after the IPCC is established in 1988.
Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization
***********************************EXCERPT*************************************
Civilization is the problem. Hansen recommends a book that incites violent sabotage, and promotes illegal activities to bring about an end to industrial civilization. Is this kind of book legal in the US?
James Hansen has called for industrial sabotage and defended lawbreakers before, but did he really read all of Keith Farnish’s words before he endorsed the book “Times Up”?
Farnish has put together a frightening compilation. He tried non-violent protest with Greenpeace for five years, but then he changed tactics. He got angry, and recommends you do too:
“Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”
The four key rules of sabotage
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook.
******************
The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Hansen was the first scientist that Sen Tim Wirth pulled into the original Hearings I think!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.