Most everyone (99.9%?) involved in the climate science community are fully aware of NASA's gross manipulation "enhancement" of the historical global temperature record dataset.
It's understood by all that the real 20th century warming was just not very dramatic, thus it had to be 'sexed up' to fit the alarmist fear-mongering. As a result, the NASA/GISS climate agency has shown their amazing "scientific" capabilities by producing an enhanced global warming trend.....by simply, and literally, lowering (ie, cooling) past recorded temperatures prior to 1960.
This chart clearly reveals these NASA's manipulation "enhancement" results, which are laughable, unless of course, one is unaware of the back story of manipulated "enhancing" climate science.
NASA's has done a yeoman's job keeping the U.S. mainstream press from discussing the faux global warming trend but international news agencies have less qualms about reporting the truth.
This chart comes from an international newscast regarding the fake global warming. The newscast about the chart and the political agenda behind it can be watched by clicking on the graph. Or read about it here.
The fabrication-fraud-like technique of increasing both regional and global warming has many examples, including several that 'C3' has addressed.
It's no surprise then that scientists are also fabricating a faster rate of sea level increase along with higher sea levels.
Basically, this HockeySchtick article reveals that taxpayer funded scientists are literally figuratively cooking-the-books using satellite altimeter data. The accompanying sea level chart depicts the extent of the fabrication-bogosity.
This revelation of (acceptable?) "climate science" at University of Colorado just provides more proof that government supported scientists in climate research should not be trusted, primarily due their clear cut affection for agenda-science.
With climate science, being a skeptic and cynic is proving to be the best approach.
Although science fraud-like-bogosity appears to dominate climate research, the activity of bogus science is not an exclusive to climate science, unfortunately.
In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)
We know that the highest priority assigned to NASA by Obama was to build the self-esteem of Muslims, which clearly hasn't worked out to well - but in the case of NOAA, they are obviously working night and day to meet their Obama objective: "warming the world"...
(click on image to enlarge)
As noted in a previous 'C3' post, NOAA conducts a bizarre torturing of historical empirical measurements that defies rational scientific reason. The data torturing of global temperatures takes place multiple times per month, in pursuit of a single-minded objective.
Warming the world.
This chart is a plot two different NOAA global temperature datasets. The green plot represents the monthly global temperatures that NOAA reported at the end of 2008. And the red plot is the same dataset, but only after the tens of thousands of manipulations NOAA has made during the Obama administration. As can be seen, the red linear trend is steeper, meaning that NOAA has fabricated a warming trend that is faster.
NOAA accomplished this by primarily lowering temperatures prior to 1950 (note the red tips at bottom, left of the blue dotted line). After 1950, global temperatures were primarily adjusted up (note the red tips at the top, to the right of the blue dotted curve).
This continuous changing of past empirical evidence is not a case of NOAA and NCDC correcting previous errors or filling-in-the-gaps, instead it is most likely the case of NOAA utilizing their own specially formulated software to "adjust" the global temperature dataset multiple times per month. Obviously, the result of the software is to methodically increase the global warming trend, which then just happens to better match the "predictions" of the infamously unreliable computer climate models that American taxpayers have been forced to spend billions on.
Conclusion: Under Obama, the blatant anti-science technique of changing data to fit the desired political agenda narrative has dominated NOAA's "climate science." They are the only major climate agency in the world that literally changes 100% of the historical empirical evidence every single month. They do so in a non-random manner to attain an objective of increasing "global warming." In simplicity, Obama can look back at the job the NOAA's scientist-bozos have done and announce with pride: "Mission Accomplished!"
Since the Obama "science" team took office, the corruption of science has become an administration mantra - whether it's the green energy science scandals like Solyndra or the bogus climate science of NOAA, it has meant science credibility being dragged through the mud, needlessly - speaking of which....
(click on image to enlarge)
These 2 charts are plots of NOAA's historical global temperature record for the month of October 1899 and May 2011. NOAA has reported 27 different temperatures for each month since January 1, 2012.
Of the 1,529 months included in the entire NOAA temperature dataset, these two months have had the largest change reported during the year 2012.
And it's not just these two months that have experienced retroactive temperature adjustments - every single month in the entire dataset has been adjusted at least 27 times during 2012. Again, that's just for 2012, with the same level of revisionist fabrications occurring in years 2011, 2010 and 2009.
Another bizarre attribute of officially sanctioned revisionism is that most of the months prior to 1950 having cooling "adjustments" similar to the blue curve; and, most of the months post 1950 have warming "adjustments," similar to the red curve. These attributes, when combined, proves that 'Obama-warming' is a phenomenon that NOAA/NCDC scientists alone have discovered (created?).
How unusual are the frequency of these adjustments? For comparison sake, the HadCRUT global temperature dataset has not been revised once in 2012, and its monthly temperatures go back to 1850 (although, HadCRUT will at some point in the near future change to a new Version 4 dataset); for the two major satellite datasets (UAH and RSS), there have been no adjustments made to their entire monthly temperature record in 2012; and finally, the NASA/GISS dataset has had one occurrence in 2012 of an entire dataset revision, plus every month the GISS folks do seem to "adjust" more recent monthly records with some frequency.
So, for the record, NOAA is the only major climate research agency that feels compelled by some agenda, to not only "adjust" temperatures on a monthly basis, but to do so multiple times within each and every month for their entire dataset going back to January 1880. And to corroborate that some sort of agenda is driving all these adjustments, NOAA's end result is always an enhancement of the 'Obama-warming' phenomenon.
Speaking of January 1880, NOAA has also reported 27 different temperatures for that month in 2012. This single example of the bizarre fabrication of global temperatures simply makes a mockery of climate science and the historical evidence, which is cause enough for any sane person to conclude that the "global warming" that NOAA scientists speak of is essentially a bunch of bullshit.
One last thought. There are those who attempt to justify the ludicrous level of adjustments to the historical measurements as a "quality control" process being rigorously conducted by NOAA researchers. Rest assured though, the above two charts (red and blue) are actual proof that NOAA "scientists" must exist in some bizarro 'QC' world that is at the level of Six Sigma weirdness (in a bad way).
In conclusion, the blatant and politically-driven temperature adjustments being performed by NOAA/NCDC on a monthly basis provides even further ammunition as to why the world needs to move to a better and more accurate methodology towards temperature measurement and reporting. Ironically, it is NOAA itself that has already conducted a large experiment, and in doing so, proving their monthly bizarre battle with the empirical evidence is truly unnecessary and superfluous.
Note: 'C3' has downloaded 27 different NOAA global temperature datasets from the NOAA web server during 2012. There actually could have been more than 27 since 'C3' may have missed several revisions over the course of 2012.
Read here. More confirmation that climate doomsday alarmists are completely incapable of conducting honest, impartial scientific research.
"The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline - linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism - was not even supported by his data. The first allegations of academic fraud have been made."
The credibility and reputation of the entire science community continues to be sacrificed by "scientists" with a political agenda, especially any scientist who is a proponent/advocate of catastrophic global warming and climate change.
The level of science misconduct alleged in the Lewandowsky affair again establishes why there needs to be 'freedom of information acts' that allow the public to discover the truth. And in fact, a 'FOIA' has been filed in this case. This should get very interesting.
Read here. Climate-lies from doomsday scientists, associated with universities, is becoming much more common. The latest is the brazen lie that the current drought climate condition within the U.S. is a record.
It's not even close, as the adjacent empricial evidence reveals. The 1930's (top graphic) clearly had drought conditions well surpassing those of 2012 (bottom graphic).
And, of course, the famous 1930's drought and heat waves took place under a regime of low atmospheric CO2 levels.
Read here. Another bogus 'hockey stick' study can't withstand the scrutiny and thus is withdrawn from publication - "put on hold" is how they charitably describe its current status.
"Scientist" Gergis claimed to have found "unprecedented warming" down under but when she refused to provide all the data pertinent to her research this set off the alarms. With the expert analysts working in the background, they went about ferreting out the details of why she refused.
It didn't take long for them to determine why she refused. In essence, she stated that her research was done in a particular manner which has now proven not to be the case. In addition, her research amazingly includes 'upside-down' correlations that other 'hockey stick' studies have been discredited with doing.
"The refusal to release data was troubling, as it prevented anyone ever being able to replicate Gergis's work. And when Gergis's blog was unearthed and it was revealed that she was a committed environmentalist, the alarm bells became louder still"..."I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I’m getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test."..."difficulties were confirmed by others, including Steve McIntyre, but perhaps most significantly, by CSIRO's Nick Stokes, who is no sort of a sceptic. Stokes agreed with Sibelius that, when detrended, the correlations for the 27 proxies used in the Gergis reconstruction were insignificant, completely contradicting Gergis's paper."..."The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data."..."Worse still, proxies were selected with positive or negative correlation. In other words, some were used 'upside-down'."
Conclusion: The Joelle Gergis affair is another sad chapter in the travails of 'hockey stick' science. Her "unprecedented warming" for the Southern Hemisphere is likely just to be another statistical fabrication that can't withstand a proper forensic audit. For this bimbo to gain any respect and credibility in the future she needs to quit acting like...er...hmmm...a bimbo. Releasing all the data and algorithms that would allow others to completely replicate here research and results will be her path back to non-bimbodom. Until then, her studies she be automatically dismissed as science garbage.
Previous hockey-stick science postings. A wide selection of historical temperature charts that refute the fabricated 'hockey sticks'
Connect-The-Dots: Global warming statistics have been heavily manipulated to conform to alarmist scientists expectations - wholesale fabrication takes place because of the infamous "the models told me to do it" rationale
Read here. The manipulation of temperature datasets, by climate alarmist scientists, to bolster the case for anthropogenic global warming has been discussed often at 'C3' and is even admitted to by those with close association to the Climategate fiascoes.
Phil Jones: ‘The instrumental records we examined seemed to be showing warmer temperatures than our computer models indicate should have occurred. We have therefore adjusted the instrumental record.’ (source here and here)
One of the simplest means to bolster the case for modern global warming, after 1950, is to "adjust" temperatures down (i.e. cool them) prior to 1950 - voila, modern global warming is enhanced by data manipulation alone. As can be seen in the above images for several individual EU climate stations, the blue lines represent the original temps and the red curves, pre-1950, the "cooling" adjustments for the period of 1920 to 1950 are obvious.
Conclusion: The over-the-top catastrophic global warming alarmist, anti-CO2 fanatic, Bill McKibben, asks us to connect the dots: global warming statistics are purposefully manipulated to establish faux modern global warming. Case closed.
The ever growing global warming science facts continue to make a shambles of the IPCC's and MSM's case that catastrophic global warming is ravaging Earth and humanity - the lies, myths and hysteria crumble under evidentiary weight
(click on images to enlarge)
The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.
The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.
Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.
The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.
Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.
Conclusion: Global warming science facts have completely demolished the lies, myths and hysteria of the IPCC and the MSM. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, these "institutions" don't falter in their pursuit of a political agenda based on falsehoods. For an expanding cornucopia of reasons, no longer does either institution deserve the belief or trust of the public.
It's another connect-the-dots climate fraud moment as Australian National University climate researchers claims of being threatened were found to be bogus - they join University of East Anglia climate "scholars" in trend of Commonwealth science corruption
('Now showing at ANU' - click on image to enlarge - image source)
Read here. Academia has been at the proverbial center of climate science fraud across the world. But Commonwealth scholars appear to be especially susceptible to Piltdown-like science where known truth is ignored or subverted or falsified.
"CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner...Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats...In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat"...Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU's vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails..."
Conclusion: Connect-the-dots climate fraud is rampant, to the point that "scholars" literally make up scenarios of boogiemen hiding underneath their beds, ready to eat their exposed toes at night. Essentially, this investigation provides proof that serious climate science scholarship is not even possible at ANU. (Perhaps, at some future point, an enterprising Aussie truth seeker will actually do a documentary film about ANU science corruption and its missrepresentation of climate science reality, no?)
It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: Insurance companies love charging higher premiums - to justify those higher premiums, Big Insurance needs the IPCC to increase the hysteria about extreme weather events
The insurance industry stands to make billions, if not trillions, on achieving higher policy premiums by pushing the exaggerated fears and hysteria of extreme climate change. For one to understand what is going on, just simply connect the dots...to accomplish this pursuit of greed, Munich Re has realized that it's easier to do so if one buys a seat at the IPCC's "climate science" table.
"You’ve got to wonder when scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf work hand in hand with the reinsurance industry, writing doomsday reports that help fatten the bottom line. Hartmut Grassl, a climate alarmist, is also connected to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer...points out how the Munich Re has at least two more agents at the IPCC. Working Group II AR5 Writing Teams, Chapter 10 — Key economic sectors and services, Eberhard Faust, Munich Reinsurance Company and an excerpt from a report from Dr Sandra Schuster, meteorologist with Munich Re, Sydney, who has just been appointed as a Lead Author (WG2) for IPCC AR5...It’s a real scam when the insurance industry buys up science and pays the science institutes and scientists to spread fear among its customers..."
Connect the dots climate change - big insurance is strictly motivated by greed and their official involvement simply corrupts any "findings" the next IPCC report promulgates regarding climate change impacts.
Previous postings on corruption of science by corporate concerns.
The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating
Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.
A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:
"John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers. They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
"...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
"QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."
For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.
The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?
These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.
The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?
The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!
The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.
The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.
Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.
Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).
Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)
Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.
As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).
Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.
The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.
Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.
The Fakegate scandal provides opportunity for U.S. congressman to push common Democrat lies and the climate change hoax - the Heartland Institute challenges congressman about falsehoods
Read here. The Democrats have the unique capability to frequently spread blatant falsehoods and rumors, and for the most part, manage to get away with it.
The mainstream media loves Democrat lies, especially if the lies support their beloved climate change hoax agenda. The growing Fakegate climate science scandal is an example of such.
One of the favorite lies is the charge that fossil fuel companies are funding the climate change skeptics, even with zilch empirical evidence to back it up. The Heartland Institute decided to call out a U.S. Congressman (a Democrat) on the blatant mis-truths and rumors that he his staff published.
The inconvenient Heartland facts that tear asunder the Democrat lies and the climate change hoax:
"(A) Documents 1-7 in the list you provided appear to be copies of confidential documents produced by The Heartland Institute and stolen by the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick. The eighth document in your list, titled “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is not an authentic Heartland document or draft document. Peter Gleick claimed to have received this memo from an anonymous source, then falsely represented it as having come from The Heartland Institute.
(B) The inaccuracies of the eighth document are documented in the attached memo, titled “ An Analysis of the Forged ‘Heartland Climate Strategy’ Memo,” which was posted on The Heartland Institute’s Web site on February 27. I am not aware of any “different authentic” documents that match your description.
(C) Documents 1-7 in your list have not been revised by Heartland staff since they were stolen by Peter Gleick. Document 8, the fake memo, is not an authentic Heartland document or draft document, therefore I do not know whether or not it has been changed. I suggest you ask the Pacific Institute if they know.
Your letter repeats several false statements that appeared in the fake memo and have been circulated widely in the press. We thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight about our position on climate change."
Special Note: It's no surprise that U.S. Congressman Markey (a Democrat) has yet to call for an inquiry into the Fakegate climate scientist who admitted conducting a wire fraud incident, which just happens to be a felony.
Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'
Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.
One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.
For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."
"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."
The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....
"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."
Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example
Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.
Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."
And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.
"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?
Peter Gleick, a progressive, green activist Democrat, confesses to anti-scientific and anti-integrity behavior in the pathetic attempt to smear the Heartland Institute
Read here and here. From the progressive Democrat mindset that brought the world the bizarre science of eugenics, and more recently the anti-vaccine crusade, comes the confession from a left-liberal scientist that he is responsible for an anti-science smear campaign of an organization that he disagrees with in regards to global warming.
The galactic-sized irony regarding this entire climate change science fiasco is that Peter Gleick is considered by coastal elites to be an expert on science integrity. That patina of integrity has itself now been smeared by none other than Gleick. As one of his leftist, anti-science MSM collaborators now puts it:
"One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)."
As this blog and many others have documented in recent years, the global warming hysteria cause is dominated by "scientists" who constantly mislead and deceive the public and policymakers. Like the Climategate outcome, the Fakegate's fabrication and conspiracy of the left's "science" will hopefully be another cleansing episode that reduces the high fever of corruption that permeates taxpayer funded science in big academia and big government.
Previous Lubchenco's NOAA "Science" Posts here, here and here.
Last time we checked, 'Lubchenco Science' had accomplished 3 full revisions of the entire historical temperature dataset during January, adding to the 6 known full revisions done in December.
Surprise!....Lubchenco has managed to squeeze another full revision of the entire temperature dataset in the last few days - making it at least 4 for January.
NOAA is now up to 10 full revisions since October - they refer to their constant revising of the historical data going back to 1880 as "quality control." In contrast, NASA/GISS, HadCRUT, UAH and RSS have not revised their entire datasets once during the last two months.
The NOAA under Lubchenco's control continues to make a mockery of empirical-based science as global warming fabrication continues unchecked
This is an update from the two previous posts, here and here. During the month of December, NOAA / NCDC revised their published historical temperature dataset at least 6 times - affecting monthly historical temperatures going back to 1880. These major revisions were not constrained to just a few recent months or a few recent years, but to all the historical empirical records.
If doing it 6 times in December wasn't bizarre enough, the NOAA "scientists" have already revised the entire dataset 3 times during January (the month isn't even over yet). [Ed. Good news: No new revised datasets in last 2 days, which means the incessant changes may be halted until next month]
Since the Obama administration takeover of NOAA / NCDC, it has been on a tear to fabricate global warming, conducting major temperature fabrication on an almost monthly basis, which has now culminated to producing multiple major revisions per month. (click to enlarge images)
(Above is a sample of revisions, including 2 (of 3) done in January 2012.)
Defenders of Lubchenco's empirical evidence revisionism refer to the constant revisions as "quality control" which is categorically one of the lamest piles of B.S. uttered in the debate on global warming. If the 'QC' defense had even an ounce of truth to it, it would mean every single previous revision had "quality control" issues even though each was a result of the same quality control process.
Plus, in contrast to the 7 major revisions done by NOAA / NCDC over the last 4 weeks, there has been only one major revision by GISS and zero for HadCRUT, UAH and RSS. (These other alphabet climate agencies do not do major revisions every single month, let alone multiple major revisions to the historical record within a month.)
Simply put, the 'big green' activist Lubchenco must have a political agenda that calls for the NCDC dataset exhibiting more "global warming."
Needless to say, her servile puppet-scientists have performed that task since 2008, month-in and month-out, as the change in the global warming trend exhibits (red is new trend; blue is old) in the adjacent chart.
[Bonus recommendation to NOAA/ NCDC: Publish only one set of numbers per month; avoid changing historical temperatures prior to 1990; and, make future changes random so that they don't appear to be purposefully warming specific periods while cooling others. Food for thought.]
BTW, this Excel chart represents the typical way that alarmists portray "runaway" global warming. That red trend line leaves the impression that global warming will go through the roof by 2100. In fact though, that red trend line indicates a "global warming" of about +0.5°C by year 2100. To mislead the public and policymakers, alarmist scientists and the mainstream press typically avoid putting numeric linear trend information on the chart, for very obvious reasons.
An example of blatant data manipulation and temperature fabrication by climate scientists - "we need to make Iceland warmer"
Read here. Steve Goddard finds another classic example of temperature fabrication involving Iceland records. Misleading the public and policymakers has become a corrupt science art-form, unchallenged by the political ruling elites and their puppet, the mainstream press.
As this style of climate-liar "science" is applied to all past temperature records, large "man-made" global warming is a no-brainer.
The embarrassing outright fabrication of the global temperature dataset continues at NOAA / NCDC - Obama's anti-science regime not challenged by the mainstream press
How bizarre is changing historical temperatures, all the way back to 1880, on a monthly basis? Recently, we wrote about NOAA's monthly temperature revisionism and the political, anti-science agenda that's driving it, global warming alarmism. [Ed: part III here]
Well, it's definitely bizarre science since other major climate agencies are not doing the same.
Amazingly though, the NOAA / NCDC agencies are now seemingly dissatisfied with just monthly fabrications. They apparently have now embraced almost daily revisionism of historical temperatures.
Although we did not check the NOAA / NCDC dataset on a daily basis during the month of December, we did check six times, downloading six different historical datasets. Did we say bizarro? (image source)
There is no rational explanation for continuously fabricating a new historical temperature dataset multiple times during a month, let alone a year. [Note: You can download the six December 2012 revisions of historical data by Obama's "science" team here.]
Of course, the mainstream press (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, CBS, MSNBC, etc.) refuses to report on the actual bogus and fraud Bernie Madoff-like science that is being perpetrated by their comrades in the climate science bureaucracy. Obviously, for the left / liberal / progressive / Democrat anti-science mindset, fabricating empirical evidence is not bizarro.....
From Wikipedia: "...introduced the strange speech patterns that became synonymous with the character, with all of Bizarro's comments meaning the opposite (e.g.. "bad" means "good")."
[Editor's special note: The NOAA/NCDC revisions this post is about are entire historical temperature dataset revisions being done multiple times per year and even multiple times per month (December 2011). We are not referring to the common practice of revising the temperatures of a few recent months that is done by all climate agencies frequently.]
Left / Progressive politically correct anti-science claims more scientific scalps as Purdue researcher declares the walnut tree is endangered by global warming
Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.
"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."
For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."
He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?
Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.
At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.
Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.
Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.
To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco's NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming - on a monthly basis
When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama "science" research group is demonstrably fabricating new "global warming" every single month. [Ed: Updates here and here]
Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama's NOAA on a monthly basis:
As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.
We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama's NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:
"Absolutely Not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable."
With that said, it appears Lubchenco's NOAA is conducting a corrupt-like style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive 'Big Green' political hack is put in charge.
So what has been Jane's impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well...one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.
Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA's "scientists" as seen below.
The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.
Soooo...since Obama's "science" team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?
Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!
Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they can simply accomplish it on their PCs.
Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.
Special note: During the month of December 2011, NOAA / NCDC had at least 4 different6 different versions of their global dataset available for download from its ftp site. Older versions are overwritten by the newer versions as they are uploaded by the agency (NCDC uses the same file name over and over apparently). NASA's GISS uploaded their first major revision of the year (December 2011) that affects all historical temperatures. The HadCRUT series has not had a major (entire historical dataset) revision this year from what we know.
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected." JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”. JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.” JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.” JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.
How does the BEST temperature dataset relate to the datasets of the major climate agencies? Using the BEST monthly anomaly data and the handy Excel correlation function, since 2001 the BEST dataset matches up quite well with the NCDC and CRU data, as the adjacent chart shows.
In essence, when NCDC and CRU temperatures 'zig,' the BEST temps are probably doing the same.
And GISS temps? Not so well. In fact, it's the worst. In contrast, when BEST and the other agency anomalies are 'zigging,' GISS is likely to be 'zagging.' This GISS divergence problem also extends to its performance versus the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, as previously pointed out by skeptics.
Why doesn't the GISS dataset comport with climate reality as documented by other sources and experts? Hmmm...one thinks global warming fame and fortune is not likely to visit those who report modest or little warming.
Since it is now clear that GISS isn't up to the "BEST" standards of science, and there is no good reason for NASA to be in the temperature reporting business in the first place, it's time to fold the GISS tent and save taxpayers some money - outsource the GISS efforts to BEST and be done with it.
Now that BEST has shown GISS to be a wasteful, error-prone (remember the Y2K error) redundancy, maybe it's time to shine a bright light on the idiocy emanating from NOAA's NCDC - their temperature dataset should also be on the hot seat of scrutiny also.
Here is an agency that seemingly has the bizarre mission to change historical temperature anomalies on a monthly basis - literally, every single month. Take the very first month of the NCDC temperature dataset, January 1880. Over the past six months, NCDC has changed the January 1880 anomaly six (6) times.
Sept. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0443
Aug. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0474
July 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0468
June 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0444
May 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0439
April 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0428
And it's not just a single month they perform this type of climate science magic on. When NCDC reported the anomalies dataset for the September 2011 reporting period, NCDC had changed every single historical month's anomaly as reported in the August 2011 dataset. They changed all 1,580 months of past temperature reporting, adding in a cumulative warming of +0.0966 in a single stroke! Did we say bizarre yet?
The folks at HadCRU don't practice this blatant monthly form of "global warming" revisionism. The folks at GISS aren't constantly revising historical temperature reporting on a monthly basis. And it's hard to imagine that BEST research team would condone, let alone practice, this style of empirical climate evidence tampering.
If BEST plays their cards right and performs in an upright, objective manner, it's not hard imagining that all of the GISS and NCDC temperature measurement/reporting efforts (not necessarily climate analysis and modeling) being on the chopping block. This would likely result in the U.S. finally having a 'BEST'-of-breed global surface temperature reporting system that could be taken seriously by all sides of the debate.
Read here. There is the very misleadingly named web site, 'skepticalscience.com,' that is a major proponent of the establishment's global warming science fiasco. The site has always seemed to be a bastion of climate falsehoods, untruths and misinformation designed to specifically mislead the public - it's what some would refer to as propaganda with fundamentally evil intent.
As an example of the misinformation, the 'SS' site continuously pushes the propaganda that climate models can produce accurate predictions, for not only short-term scenarios, but for exceedingly long-term climate scenarios. As 'C3' has long documented, computer climate models are robustly and spectacularly wrong for any climate prediction, for any time period, without any question.
Computer climate simulations and models are sooo bad that even climate model experts admit their major shortcomings (as seen on the left - click to enlarge).
Not so the 'SS' site. Its desire to mislead the public is so strong that it deleted the offending factual information on the left from its own comments section. Why? Because fundamentally evil, totalitarian mindsets cannot allow the public to witness the truth or empirical fact - that's their nature.
A common tactic for the totalitarian mindset is to conclude that differing opinions and inconvenient facts must be the result of the mentally deranged, thus any information from these sources must be changed or erased, for fears the propaganda machine's "truth" will diluted.
"The deletions carried out by Cook don’t make sense as an exercise in moderation. They seem driven by an ardent need to present a clean and neat view of global warming. Of a need to reassure that no intelligent discussions exist, and all possible questions have (long) been answered...By November 2009, Cook had arrived at a dramatically different viewpoint. He saw ‘global warming skepticism’ as a sort of a mental illness or a psychiatric condition, with the afflicted being beyond any hope. Psychologic diagnoses permeates his thinking from that point on...Cook voices his thoughts on the shift in a post in November 2009. It is hard to fathom, why, anybody who ran a website and worked hard at attracting and nurturing an online community, would commit the most fundamental of indiscretions with his readers’ comments – deleting and moulding them at his own whim."
The totalitarian machinations found at the 'SS' site are typical of left/liberal/green "climate science" sites and blogs - the inconvenient empirical evidence and objective science must be smeared and/or eliminated. This is also very common within the left/liberal establishment MSM that constantly fabricates a "consensus" regarding global warming.
For the uninitiated to the 'SS' site, here are some inconvenient truths, objective climate science information and actual empirical evidence, that you won't find at their site:
Read here. The climate science peer review journal process has become just a total joke, with editors and reviewers constantly embarrassing themselves and their respective publications. The latest examples of biased hackdom include Eric Calais of Purdue University and Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford, editors for the AGU's Geophysical Research Letters.
The AGU treatment of scientist Roger Pielke Jr. by its minions should come as no surprise though, since these editors are likely the useful idiots of AGU board members pushing non-scientific political agendas.
How bad is the process at the Geophysical Research Letters? Read the whole thing, then weep and/or laugh - it's really that bad at this publication.
"So you have two reviews that find the paper publishable, one recommending publication and the other coming down on the side of finding the paper "publishable" but certainly not enthusiastically...As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor's judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL."
Thank you, Chris Mooney and the useful idiots of the academic world - destroying science and the journals with political correctness one step at a time.
Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.
Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change - e.g. "I believe it now rains more in York".
Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF's "Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel".
Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC "climate scientists" take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.
Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces "scientific" reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.
Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they're the worst form of grey literature.
Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.
"It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page...In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to:
"inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat."
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement."
Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC's Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC's 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.
Read here. The violence-prone and globally discredited Ben Santer has Climategate friends (Kevin Trenberth and Andy Dessler) who recently claimed that the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study is invalid because it did not include prior research to their liking.
Now we have Ben Santer, Carl A. Mears, C. Doutriaux, Peter Martin Caldwell, Peter J. Gleckler, Tom M.L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, Nathan Gillett, Detelina P. Ivanova, Thomas R. Karl, John R. Lanzante, Gerald A. Meehl, Peter A. Stott, Karl E Taylor, Peter Thorne, Michael F. Wehner, Frank J. Wentz publishing a study that totally ignores the challenge of previous, pivotal research by Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010.
Hmmmm.....pot meet kettle, eh?
"Santer et al ignored an important paper...Trends are computed for different time periods (e.g. see figure 2 in Christy et al 2010), and should have been compared with the model predictions...The failure of Santer et al to include a very relevant paper with respect to their analysis is one of the justifications for Wolfgang Wagner to resign from Remote Sensing in response to claims that Spencer and Braswell (S&B) ignored relevant papers that disagreed with S&B."
Fair is fair.....Santer et al. is simply discredited due to this lack of respect for the new era of Climategate-style research. Santer needs to apologize to the previous research authors for this gross lack of scientific research rigor, and he could also finally apologize for threatening another climate scientist with violent harm while off his meds. ;-)
Read here. New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work's shoddiness.
Supposedly, Dessler's new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.
Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.
It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn't the case, why not use the gold-standard?
Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn't take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so "positive."
"Doing the same regression with 4-month lagged relationships (which both Dessler and SB agree to be more significant than the instantaneous relationship), the sign of the slope is reversed. Whereas Dessler 2010 had reported a slope of 0.54 +- 0.72 (2σ) W/m2/K, the regression with lagged variables is -0.90 +- 0.95 w/m2/K and has better diagnostics...Given that the even the lagged relationship is weak, I’m reluctant to say that analysis using the methods of Dessler 2010 established a negative feedback, but it does seem to me that they cannot be said to have established the claimed positive feedback...Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth."
Objectively, if the Dessler rushed peer reviewed research is the best that mainstream climate scientists can deliver against the Spencer and Braswell study, then it's a case closed. Clouds do appear to be a negative feedback mechanism within the climate system as the Spencer 2011 work suggests.
Read here. The public disbelief in scientists and their science journals continues to grow. This is especially true in the realm of "climate science" and "global warming."
In the case of climate science, the UN's political agenda dictated a need to assure the appropriate peer reviewed journals lost their scientific objectivity. What better way to do it then making the "science" journals an integral part of the IPCC "science" process?
"But what happens when the people who are in charge of these journals are the same ones who write IPCC reports?...Today’s exhibit is the Journal of Climate. It’s published by the American Meteorological Society – which certainly sounds reputable. But let’s take a look at its IPCC connections...It’s chief editor, Anthony J. Broccoli, was a contributing author and expert reviewer for the IPCC’s 2007 report...Nathan Gillett, one of its editors, served in four separate AR4 capacities – as a lead author, an expert reviewer for both Working Group 1 and Working Group 2, and as an expert reviewer of the Synthesis Report. He is now a lead author for the upcoming IPCC report...Marika Holland, another editor at the Journal of Climate, contributed to two chapters of the 2007 climate bible...Editor Andrew Pitman was an IPCC lead author, a contributing author, and an expert reviewer for the 2007 edition. Moreover, he’s involved in the upcoming report as a review editor...As editor James Renwick’s bio page makes clear, he was a contributing author to the 2001 IPCC report, a lead author for the 2007 report, and is currently a lead author for AR5...editor Brian Soden was a 2007 contributing author and an expert reviewer who is currently serving as an AR5 lead author...Editor Shang-Ping Xie is currently an AR5 lead author, and editor Michael Alexander was a 2007 IPCC expert reviewer."
And that's just one of the supposed "impartial" and "objective" peer reviewed journals. As they say..."Houston, we have a problem." It's science journalism at its worst.
Read here. A key figure indicating the presence of scientific fraud is that the number of papers retracted after publication has grown by some 15-times since 2001.
No wonder so many of the Climategate scientists resist releasing their studies data and algorithms - hey, if released, the scientific fraud paper retraction rate would likely jump to 30-times. ;-)
""The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."....."Journals all want to have spectacular results," she said. "Increasingly, they're willing to publish more risky papers."....."journals and research institutions don't have adequate systems in place to properly investigate misconduct.".....The apparent rise in scientific fraud, said Dr. Horton "is a scar on the moral body of science.""
""Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.""
Read here. There are scientists from the past and present who have managed to command center stage of the world's press despite their known incompetencies. Kevin Trenberth is one such scientist. The media just plain love his shrill, non-scientific hysteria that human CO2 emissions cause cherry-picked weather disasters, yet the man has no empirical, scientific evidence to back it up.
Overall global hurricane/cyclone energy levels have recently reached new lows. This has taken place despite the global warming (disappearing?) caused by the evil human CO2 emissions.
In 2004 though, Trenberth proclaimed that hurricane frequency and intensity would increase, using only the highly speculative AGW hypothesis as his base of hysterical predictions - a definite non-expert, non-empirical fabrication.
An actual IPCC hurricane expert at the time took very serious issue with Trenberth's hurricane incompetence and fabrication of AGW-caused hurricane activity:
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s [coordinating] Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity...I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr.Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story…and that Dr.Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the [2001 Climate Bible], even though it is quite clear that [it] stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media…"
Obviously, Trenberth is a highly incompetent scientist, based just on his frequent wild-assed speculations that seemingly are always wrong. If the climate science community is ever wanting to be believed by the American public, they need to jettison Trenberth and his likes from the public podium and taxpayer funded research - it's a no-brainer.
Read here. The IPCC objectives are not climate science but instead political objectives of its green creators and fanatics. The UN's IPCC is infected by the Big Green machine's activist personnel and alumni. To make it so, Pachauri keeps defending the fringe green elements (and their non-scientific techniques) involved in the IPCC's climate reporting.
"Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case...He has boasted that his organization is utterly transparent – but an InterAcademy Council committee that took a close look at the IPCC last year concluded otherwise – before recommending that Pachauri should step down...Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas...In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist..."
Read here and here. The anti-democratic forces unleashed by the green/left/liberal/progressive collaboration has been well documented by their own unequivocal and unprecedented statements. It appears, though, the talking is done, and the time for legally and physically suppressing catastrophic- climate skeptics is the now preferred means being implemented by the ruling class and "elites."
"The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone, and it isn’t the only extracurricular means the global warmists use in attempts to shut up dissenters. The BBC recently announced that in an effort to be more attuned to the scientific “consensus,” it would no longer strive to provide balanced coverage of climate issues."
As the "consensus" science that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming has utterly failed (as the skeptics predicted), the green/left climate alarmist community is now turning to techniques honed by Stalin himself.
The hate, terrorization and censorship techniques utilized by Stalin against his critics and opponents started small, but ultimately grew to the point of complete control of all information and thinking - literally, skeptics of the communists and Stalin were stifled, shot or thrown in the Gulag.
A fascinating series of videos describing the machinations of Stalin can be found here: part1, part2, part3, part4, part5 and part6. Once viewed, one can understand why the Michael Manns of the world, the BBC and major science lobbying associations are so enamored with many of the Stalin-esque tactics.
Read here. The IPCC and most Climate alarmist scientists long ago devoted their efforts to supporting the extremist/radical green political agenda. There is plenty of documentation of this support and the lengths to which climate scientists pursue their ideologue agenda.
The most obvious way to show support is to become lapdogs of the fringe green organizations advocating energy and economic policies that are anti-business, anti-consumer and anti-growth. Globally, Canadian scientists are some of the best lapdogs embracing this leftist/progressive, non-scientific utopia:
"I stumbled across a document the other day that rendered me speechless. ‘This can’t be right,’ I said to myself. ‘You’ve been parked in front of this computer so long you’ve begun to hallucinate.’...But my eyes were not, in fact, deceiving me. In December 2009 hundreds of Canadian scientists really did choose to publicly align themselves with a left-leaning advocacy organization. They actually thought this was a smart strategy – that this is how you persuade a Tory national government to take action on climate change."
Read here. Radical green, left-wing organizations such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council have consistently been pushing the hysteria agenda of polar ice sheet melting and subsequent catastrophic sea level rises. Unfortunately for these fringe outfits, peer reviewed science and empirical evidence exposes the hysteria for what it is - pure B.S. bogosity.
"The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice packs of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.
Ok, so the glaciers in question are allegedly melting at 10 cubic km per year, which is 1/3,000,000 of the Antarctic ice. That means it would take 30 years to melt 1/100,000 of the Antarctic ice, or 300 cubic km. So the ice is melting at a rate equivalent to a human losing 1 of his/her 100,000 hairs every 30 years.
Approximately how many hairs are on a human head? Obviously, the number varies from person to person, but in general the answer is that the human head has about 100,000 strands of hair."
Read and view here. The greens/lefties/libs/progressives ludicrous climate exaggerations, science stupidity and gross intolerance of others is on full display in these videos. Let's hope they keep insulting the intelligence of the public because it's working big time in winning the war for the lukewarmers and C-AGW skeptics.
In the internet age, the lies, threats and propaganda of the left's totalitarian ambitions, as represented by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council, no longer works so well, eh? In today's wired world, it's not such a surprise since it has become common knowledge what the radical green, anti-CO2 movement is all about.
Read here. As the actual, empirical climate evidence has monstrously failed to support even the most minor of global warming predictions, let alone the ludicrous, catastrophic-cult hysteria pushed by fringe green elements, the AGW activists now plan to unequivocally fabricate their climate misinformation in order to frighten the public and policymakers.
Despite the avalanche of continuous global warming lies and anti-CO2 propaganda that green radicals got published by their "science" reporter puppets in the mainstream press, the public has roundly rejected the crisis and catastrophic scenarios. It is clear that this strategy of fear has not worked, yet the green PR flaks have decided to double-down by utilizing a 100% climate-lie campaign to scare the gullible and weak-minded (hmmm...that would be your typical liberal/progressive/Democrat watching CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, BBC and etc.).
The new PR plan by the crazy greens is to blame every single weather event on climate change. It does not matter any longer if it is a pure 100% lie; what matters is that it scares people by constant repetition.
"Named the ‘Stonehouse Standing Circle Summit’, it was a gathering of “some of North America’s leading communications professionals and academics”, the report put it. Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz were listed, as were chiefs from a host of public relations and lobbying firms and activist organizations...What one can gather from the document is quite interesting. Initially it starts with the blasé interpretation of environmentalism which is in vogue currently: ‘environmentalism is a failure’. How and why has environmentalism ‘failed’?""
"The main solution proposed by the delegates, we learn, is the exploitation of crises to ratchet up public mindfulness of climate change...The only solution, the report concludes is to have a “SWAT team” of public relations personnel who will “ready to go into action immediately” as a disaster occurs, and immediately link the disaster to ‘climate change’ across a wide variety of media platforms."
"The methods advocated are clear—emulate advertisers and marketers in ‘taking advantage of current events’, don’t be caught by surprise by disaster but instead meet and plan ahead, develop a ‘coordinated crisis response strategy internally’, and ‘get out of the gate quickly to set the tone of the coverage’. Making people afraid is alright..."
Unfortunately for the greens, who are now submerging themselves into the ash heap of history by embracing and advocating Orwellian propaganda techniques, the public will still desire credible sources of information about weather and climate science sans the hysteria and faux-crisis window dressing. For example, putting current weather incidents into the context of the past will still be widely demanded by the public, as will the documentation of the massive number of failed AGW predictions over the recent past, that the usual big green PR types are paid to cover up.
The market for accurate climate science and weather facts is huge, which an ever growing number of alternative sources provide, thus making the lives of the Orwellian PR-based climate liars a constant career of failure and misery.
Read here and here (scroll down to "A most interesting new paper").
Scientists who are proponents of catastrophic global warming now admit there has been no warming since 1998. They blame increased aerosol pollutants from China as being the reason why temperatures are cooling versus warming. Unfortunately, actual air quality measurements reveal the galactic bogosity of that claim. (click on charts to enlarge)
For example, U.S. air quality since 1990 has improved tremendously with vast reductions in air aerosols and particulates as the chart on left reveals. While aerosols/particulates over the U.S. were dramatically decreasing, the U.S. surface temperatures were falling as shown in the chart on the right.
The lack of warming due to increased aerosols is regurgitated lameness that "climate scientists" always attempt to fall back on when actual empirical evidence invalidates the AGW hypothesis. It's more bogus science from the 'Twilight Zone' of the climate science establishment.
Saw Lucia's post about NOAA/NCDC global temperatures being warmer in April, and boy was she right. The April data that NOAA/NCDC has posted on their FTP site has had major adjustments done to it since the March 2011 dataset.
The total cumulative warming that NOAA added to the dataset was 3.42 degrees of anomaly. In summary, from 1880 to 1902, global temperatures were adjusted warmer; from 1902 to 1955, the monthly global temperatures were made consistently cooler; and since 1955, they religiously increased global warming by adjusting up the temperature for most months. This is what taxpayer funded, bureaucrat-scientists call "science."
This is not a new fabrication phenomenon. This has been done multiple times previously, with each having the exact same outcome: cool the earlier years, then bake the later years.
The world's major climate agencies are all on a mission to convince policymakers and the public that global warming is "unequivocal." Because current temperatures are not much different than those warm years in the 1930's, NOAA has cooled the earlier periods, then warmed the later years to reach global warming nirvana - "unprecedented."
(click on image to enlarge) Why isn't this unequivocal and unprecedented temperature fabrication reported by the "science" reporters at the NYT, WAPO or CBS? Well, they decided long ago not to report the accurate and objective truth about climate evidence due to their liberal/left biases - and, btw, 'gloom & doom' sells more papers and makes profits, thank you very much!
Update: Should have noted the new NOAA/NCDC anomalies are the result of their referenced new 'Version 3' of the data.
Update 2: For more context, the below cumulative temperature adjustments (multiple) that NOAA/NCDC have "produced" since 2008.
Update 3: The below shows the amount of adjustment made on each month since publication of the 2008 NOAA/NCDC dataset. Again, it's clearly the bureaucrat-scientists' objective to make recent global warming appear greater than it was in contrast to the earlier 20th century.
Read here and here. So far, 2011 has produced a number of disastrous events including: extreme cold and snow, earthquakes, tsunamis, radiation releases, floods, fires, rainstorms and tornadoes. Recently, this has led the IPCC's big-guns, the ones who provided us with Climategate and put climate science into such deep disrepute, to opine that human CO2 and global warming are to blame for these severe weather events and other 2011 calamities.
In the realm of nature and Earth's climate though, a lot of really bad stuff happens and humans are not the cause of it. Take 1878/1879 for example - below are samples of what the newspapers and etc. reported those years. Be thankful it's not the 1878/1879 period, or many other really bad years.
1878: Southern England Suffers Rare Tornado, Followed By Snow
1878: Winter In England Is 5.4 Degrees Colder Than Average
1878: Devastating Hurricane Strikes Tahiti
1878: Terrible Australian Drought Followed By Disastrous Floods
1878: Ceylon Hit By Multiple Floods Causing Great Property Damage
1878: Indian Ocean Cyclone Wipes Bourbon Island Clean
1878: Immense Floods Overwhelm Sacramento, California Region
1878: Great Floods In England's Thames Valley
1878: Hundreds Lost At Sea During Bay of Biscay, Spain Hurricane
1878: Wisconsin Tornado Hits Multiple Rural Towns, 30 People Killed
1878: France Experiences Large Floods
1878: Three Year Massive Drought & Famine Ends In India
1878: Officially announced that 7,000,000 persons have died of “famine in China.”
1878: Brooklyn, NY Has Malaria Outbreak
1878: Hurricane & Two Waterspouts Bash Canton, China
1878: Eleven Days of Extreme Hot Temperatures Torch America's Midwest
1878: Southern Morocco Droughts Turns Populace Into "Living Skeletons"
1878: Hailstorm In Austria Wrecks Crops, Hailstones Unusually Large
1878: Severe Thunderstorms & Hailstorms Thrash Switzerland - Fires and Floods Result
1878: Prolonged Drought In South Africa Threatens Disastrous Famine
1878: Terrible Gale Strikes England's Coast, 400 Out of 500 Fishing Boats Lost
1879: 70 Million Chinese People Starving From “2 centuries of climatic change almost without a parallel”
1879: Account – Destructive Earthquakes Hit Japan Every Ten Years
1879: 165 MPH Winds Pummel North Carolina
1879: Half A Million Dead In Brazil From Drought, Starvation And Pestilence
Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth are individuals who will use any disaterous event, regardless of the science and empirical evidence, to bolster the fortunes of their failed AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately for these IPCC "scientists", history is replete with years of disasterous events prior to large human CO2 emissions. And every year, more and more of the global public recognizes that the truth is different than what Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth claim.
Read here. A famous climate scientist takes the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to task for a bogus climate model study where the scientists fraudulently believe that models have told them what regional climate conditions will be during the late 21st century. These virtual climate simulated predictions are about as reliable as astrology, tarot cards, a Oujia board or crystallomancy.
First, Roger Pielke (senior) points out the "scientists" used global climate models to predict regional climates, which is well known to be climate science malpractice. Simply put, global climate models are absolutely worthless as prediction tools for for regional purposes, let alone for global purposes.
Second, the ORNL researchers literally claim that output from virtual computer simulations as "scientific" evidence, which is scientifically absurd. This claim by itself is direct evidence of how science and the peer-reviewed journals have have gone-off-the-rails in desires to enhance careers and champion political agendas.
"However, this article (and the climate modeling research program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if this paper is typical) has been derailed from the proper assessment of the skill at climate prediction...Instead, as illustrated in the paper below, they have adopted the scientifically flawed approach of making regional climate forecasts decades into the future. The journal, Geophysical Research Letters, by accepting such a prediction paper, is similarly compromising robust science...The use of the term “evidence” with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves...Models are hypotheses and need to be tested against real data. However, the climate models have not been shown skill at predicting...there is no way to perform this test until those decades occur."
Read here. Dr. Richard Muller, a highly acclaimed Berkley physicist and author of Physics for Future Presidents, is joining with other prominent scientists in an all out effort to establish an accurate and transparent global temperature data record that policymakers can hopefully believe and rely on. It's called the BEST project.
Existing temperature databases maintained by NASA, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRUT have been highly tainted by political agenda-driven science, to the point where empirical-based scientists are incredulous about many of the "accelerating," "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" global warming claims. In this video, it is painfully clear that Dr. Muller knows that existing, fabricated temperature records are highly suspect.
And how about the reporting on this important and unique climate science endeavor from the New York Times and Washington Post? Nada. Zilch. Goose egg. Nil. Zip. Over the last 60 days, the NYT has had 68 stories referencing global warming and the Washington Post has had 97 - none of which reported on Muller's BEST project.
Why is that the case? The NYT and Wapo have invested substantially in publicizing the extreme, hysterical claims of global warming alarmists, which this new climate project ultimately threatens. If either newspaper started publishing the truth about climate science, there would have to be a lots of 'splainin' to do to their readership. Instead, they keep the liberal/left audience in the dark with "leading edge" science reporting on global warming like this.
In the meantime, here's one global temperature chart that NYT and Wapo readers won't ever see - the actual global warming reality from high technology, instead of fabrication. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. More and more people are thankfully coming to the realization that the IPCC is nothing more than a political hack group, pushing the green's highly desired global governance policies - using human CO2 as the proverbial UN nose under the sovereign nation tent flap. One means that the IPCC aggressively uses to promote their non-scientific agenda is the reliance on activists from prominent green organizations.
One of the primary green groups that uses its position to corrupt IPCC "climate science" is the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). Nothing wrong with the WWF pushing for what policies they think are right, but no one considers the WWF idea of "science" as impartial or objective. If the UN truly wants the next IPCC report to be believed outside the halls of its own bureaucracy, then no way should any WWF employee be directly involved in any of the IPCC science/economic impact deliberations for the future report.
"How can Moss – who has cashed paycheques from a charity dedicated to advancing the UN’s agenda and from an activist group whose fundraising prospects are connected to the public’s sense of alarm – be regarded as a dispassionate and neutral scientist?.....I find Moss’ testimony to a US Senate committee in November 2007 troubling. It suggests that senior scientists see their government positions, their academic positions, IPCC activities, employment with the United Nations, and employment with activist groups as being all interconnected and pretty much equivalent. To me, this suggests that activist scientists are far from rare. It appears that activism has become the new normal."
As always, it never hurts to remind oneself what the UN, the IPCC and its power brokers are really after - their own words best explain what's at stake.
Read here. As the New Zealand climate authorities recently admitted to wholesale temperature fabrication, it is important to note that other national climate agencies continue policies of blatant fabrication. NASA's GISS research unit is still on a personal quest to make 1998 hotter than by 1934, which they appeared to have finally acheived.
Despite 65 years of 1934 being recorded as the hottest U.S. year, NASA's James Hansen and his personal minions turned up the heat furnace on 1998 and the A/C on 1934. Over a decade of effort they finally achieve their result, a fabricated temperature record that the lame mainstream media (NYT, Wapo, AP, NBC, etc.) duly reports without mentioning to the public that NASA's temperatures have been faked.
"Why? Well, given steadily rising CO2 levels, and the high warming sensitivity of virtually all climate models to CO2, it would have been, let us say inconvenient, for 1998 to have been bested by a hot golden oldie from over 60 years previous! Kind of like your great grandpa beating you in a foot race."
"Sato’s first report, dated July 1999, shows 1934 with an impressive lead of over half a degree (0.541ºC to be exact) above 1998.....OOPS, the hot race continued after the FOIA email! I checked the tabular data at GISS Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) today and, guess what? Since the Sato FOIA email discussed above, GISS has continued their taxpayer-funded work on both 1998 and 1934. The Annual Mean for 1998 has increased to 1.32ºC, a gain of a bit over an 11th of a degree (+0.094ºC), while poor old 1934 has been beaten down to 1.2ºC., a loss of about a 20th of a degree (-0.049ºC). So, sad to say, 1934 has lost the hot race by about an eighth of a degree (0.12ºC)."