As the stomach turns – climate scam part 3972

One of the dominant narratives of the whole climate saga is that ‘the earth is warming.’ That ‘humans are to blame’ is usually appended, but a dead cert way to get crossed off the winterval card list is to reply ‘bollocks’ to the first bit. Even if you point out that the data is so bad, and so fiddled that nothing can be inferred from it, you’re an instant pariah.

Here’s a small part of the reason many of us feel that way:

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center caught cooling the past – modern processed records don’t match paper records

We’ve seen examples time and again of the cooling of the past via homogenization that goes on with GISS, HadCRUT, and other temperature data sets. By cooling the data from the past, the trend/slope of the temperature for the last 100 years increases.

Ken looked at entire years of data from the 1920s and 1930s for numerous different states and found that this ‘cooling’ of the old data was fairly consistent across the board. In fact he produced some charts showing such. Here is an example for the entire year of 1934 for Arizona:

The chart above shows how many degrees cooler each monthly average temperature for the entire state of Arizona for each month in 1934 was compared to the current NCDC database (i.e. versus what the actual monthly temperatures were in the original Climatological Data Summaries published in 1934 by the USWB (U.S. Weather Bureau). Note, for instance, how February is 3.1°F cooler in the current database compared to the historical record.

Read the entire story here: Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis .

8 Responses to “As the stomach turns – climate scam part 3972”

  1. A K Haart June 26, 2012 at 16:54 Permalink

    “One of the dominant narratives of the whole climate saga is that ‘the earth is warming’.”

    I used to go along with rising global temperatures, but now I’m not so sure with all the data adjustments, quite apart from the suspicious stuff.

    I can’t imagine adjusting raw data in the way climate scientists seem to regard as routine. You take raw data and you do stats on it. You don’t adjust it then do the stats.

    Another problem is with trends and what to take as the starting point. There isn’t one as far as I can see.

  2. ivan June 26, 2012 at 18:10 Permalink

    Then there is the satellite data that they all rely on to tell us the arctic ice is melting but for some strange reason I can’t find their control areas where they do actual physical measurements and compare them with what the satellites give.

    There was also the article in the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/ where physical measurements show the computer models are just plain wrong.

  3. Chuckles June 26, 2012 at 19:09 Permalink

    AKH,
    Likewise I really cannot say whether there has been warming or not. The moe I’ve looked at it the bigger the question mark, and the less real and usable data there appears to be.

    Ivan,
    I love the ‘satellites tell us’ almost as much as ‘experts say’. After all the years I spent in satellite remote sensing, I don’t buy any of that stuff.
    The claims of melting usually turn out to be in the peninsula, outside the Antarctic circle, or in the east, where no-ones really looks or monitors.
    When they do look, they find there’s no melting.

  4. Moggsy June 27, 2012 at 07:15 Permalink

    AKH, With simple trends for any data the starting point is where you decide to put it, but if you are trending chunks of the data it gives different slopes.You have to be careful how you use them or they can fool you.

    I used to take what “they” say on face value.

    I don’t really trust the “climate scientists” to do honest science any more. I worry Climate “Science” looks worryingly like how soviet science worked in some fields. Plus some of the important senior figures seem a bit crooked.

    They usually seem to go on about ice melt during the spring/summer when it melts don’t they. Not when it freezes again.

  5. James Higham June 27, 2012 at 09:07 Permalink

    [Reading and learning here.]

  6. andy5759 June 28, 2012 at 19:28 Permalink

    Long before Warble Gloaming and Climate Change became fashionable I was quite fervent in my Greenness. Almost as soon as it became fashionable I began to question it all. As a result I ended up questioning my own motives; am I such a maverick, etc?
    Recently I have had the benefit of such sites as WuWT, JoNova to give me the science. Other sites give me information regarding the financial scams going on.
    There really is fraud taking place on a massive scale; carbon credits, funding of some very dodgy science. This is a massive industry trading in lies and providing only misery and eventual poverty for all but a few.
    This is a WAR for our minds, our hearts, and ultimately our souls.

  7. James Higham June 28, 2012 at 20:25 Permalink

    My position is not to swing from one extreme to another. I think it does behove us to look after our environment, I don’t like seeing huge swathes of forest cut down unless they are genuinely replaced, we may be poisoning the fish etc.

    That there are weather changes is not in dispute. There’s been some freaky weather around the globe and it’s probably going to increase. There was certainly an increase in temperatures in Russia over ten years which seemed to stop after I left. :)

    That doesn’t mean there’s irreversible global warming and the Sun might have something to say about all that. There are cycles of temperatures. That can be argued out.

    What is inarguable is that some very dishonest people are putting forward shoddy science, one can only conclude for money and the PTB are in it for the command and control, for the making of serfs, destruction of the middle-class, scarcity of food [held in silos most like] and a return to rationing.

    I’m sure that’s their game. GW is just one of the tools. Even were the science true, it would still be some time before it impinged but meanwhile, their BS is impinging something awful.

    It truly needs to be stopped.

  8. Moggsy June 29, 2012 at 08:13 Permalink

    On the costs.. who pays? Us is who, by taxes or by a product or service costing more. Follow the money to find the guilty.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string mEH4Os to the field below: