Political Climate
Oct 08, 2018
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time—Part XIX

By Francis Menton

Don’t be too surprised that you’re not reading much recently about the impending climate apocalypse and the supposed “hottest year,” “hottest month,” or “hottest day” ever.  The reason is that global lower troposphere temperatures, as measured by satellites and published by UAH, are down by more than 0.7 deg C since early 2016.  That’s well more than half of what was thought to be the temperature increase since the satellite record began in 1979.  September 2018 turned out to be the coolest September in ten years.

But inquiring minds are still eager to get to the bottom of the temperature adjustment scandal that has created a fake warming trend in the so-called “surface temperature” record that goes back into the mid-1800s.  For those unfamiliar with this field, the “surface temperature” record comes from a totally different source from the satellite record, namely a network of conventional thermometers, each located a few feet above the ground, scattered around the world.  The data from the surface thermometers is collected and published by three entities, two in the U.S. (NASA and NOAA) and one in England (the Hadley Center at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia).  Those three use somewhat different but substantially overlapping surface thermometers to compile their records.  All three show a noticeable warming trend in the range of 1.5 deg C since the late 19th century.

But is the warming trend real, or is all or most of it an artifact of temperature adjustments made to the record over time?  Many have noticed that substantial downward adjustments have been made to raw temperatures recorded at many of the stations in the surface thermometer networks during the earlier part of the record, mainly from the mid-1800s through 1950s.  This issue has been the principal focus of my series The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.  This is now Part XIX of that series.

Here’s the new development:  A guy named John McLean has just (October 2018) published a big Report via John Boyle Publishing, essentially consisting of an expanded and updated version of his 2017 Ph.D. thesis for James Cook University in Australia.  For his thesis, McLean elected to conduct an “audit” of one of the surface temperature records, that of the Hadley Center at UEA, a series known as HadCRUT4.  The HadCRUT4 series is the main series relied on by the IPCC for its warnings of climate alarm propounded to the governments of the world.  The full McLean Report is behind a pay wall, where it can be purchased for $8.  I have purchased a copy.  The Executive Summary and some other excerpts can be found at Watts Up With That here

McLean’s audit is scathing in many respects.  He covers everything from impossibly crazy temperature readings that nobody bothers to examine or correct (one town in Colombia records a three-month period with an average temperature over 80 deg C, which is 176 deg F) to ridiculous sparsity of data (in some of the early years, the entire southern hemisphere has only one land-based weather station), and so on.  The overall conclusion:

Governments and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rely heavily on the IPCC reports so ultimately the temperature data needs to be accurate and reliable.  This audit shows that it is neither of those things.

By all means buy the Report and read it if you have the time.  In this post I’m going to focus mainly on one portion of it, which is the part that addresses the issue of the early-year downward temperature adjustments.

For extensive background on this temperature-adjustment issue, you can read the previous posts in this series.  To make it a little easier to grasp, I’ll throw in this graph from Part XVIII of the series, posted in January of this year.  This graph shows current and earlier versions of temperature data from the station at Geneva in upstate New York.  Note that this data is from GISS (NASA) rather than HadCRUT, but the adjustment issues are comparable:


Somehow temperatures prior to 1950 have been adjusted downward by in excess of 2 deg C; and between 1950 and 1970 by in excess of 1 deg C.  That’s one way to create a strong warming trend!  But how has that been done, and how do we know that the adjustments are appropriate?  None of NASA, NOAA or Hadley/CRU have been forthcoming with anything approaching an adequate explanation.

Now McLean weighs in with some insights.  From the Executive Summary:

Another important finding of this audit is that many temperatures have been incorrectly adjusted. The adjustment of data aims to create a temperature record that would have resulted if the current observation stations and equipment had always measured the local temperature. Adjustments are typically made when station is relocated or its instruments or their housing replaced.

The typical method of adjusting data is to alter all previous values by the same amount. Applying this to situations that changed gradually (such as a growing city increasingly distorting the true temperature) is very wrong and it leaves the earlier data adjusted by more than it should have been. Observation stations might be relocated multiple times and with all previous data adjusted each time the very earliest data might be far below its correct value and the complete data record show an exaggerated warming trend.

There is much more on this subject in the body of the Report, particularly pages 82 to 86.  McLean asserts that something like the following is a frequent occurrence:  A measuring site, originally located in an undisturbed rural area, gradually becomes surrounded by urban build-up, and becomes subject to the urban heat island effect.  Thus, the temperatures it is recording are “too high” at least as compared to some theoretical un-affected “true” temperature.  At some point, the station is appropriately moved to a new location without the urbanization.  The difference between the temperatures recorded at the new and old locations is calculated.  And then - and here is the key error - the temperatures at the old location are adjusted downward by the amount of that difference, for all times going back to the beginning of the station.  But here’s the error: in its early years, the station was not affected by an urban heat island, so temperatures from that period should not be adjusted downward.  Yet they are.  From page 84 of the Report:

It is incorrect but seemingly common to apply a constant adjustment to all data from the first site according the calculated difference between it and the second site when the data at the first site has been distorted by gradual changes in the local environment. It defies logic that a location that was abandoned because it was contaminated by external influences was equally contaminated when the observation station was first established there and throughout the entire time that the station was at that site, but this is what a constant data adjustment implies. 

So, can an independent researcher at least be given the adjustment methodology so that the process can be reverse-engineered and corrected?  From page 82:

Much of the observation station data used in HadCRUT4 is likely to have been adjusted but there is no record of the method used or the amount of the adjustment, which makes the data impossible to independently audit.

In short, there is no getting to the bottom of the temperature-adjustment scandal, because the perpetrators have created no record to make it possible to figure out what they have done or to attempt to reproduce their work. 

Final question:  Is there any possibility that this is done innocently, as opposed to an intentional effort to engineer a fake record to support the cause of climate alarm?

OK, this is just one young guy doing some due diligence.  But the fact is, he has nailed the grand pooh-bahs with obvious data manipulation to achieve their desired result.  Do you expect any kind of response from the in crowd?  I don’t.

I’ll end with some conclusions from the Executive Summary:

The primary conclusion of the audit is however that the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed.

One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.

Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is low - it averages 30% across that time - and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect.

A third implication is that even if the IPCC’s claim that mankind has caused the majority of warming since 1950 is correct then the amount of such warming over what is almost 70 years could well be negligible. The question then arises as to whether the effort and cost of addressing it make any sense.

Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change.

Sep 12, 2018
Delingpole: Hurricane Florence - Another Thing Not Caused by Climate Change

James Delingpole


Hurricane Florence is gathering strength as it approaches the Carolinas but not everyone is praying that it dissipates.

For Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Jane Goodall, Catherine McKenna, Dave Matthews, John Kerry, Tom Steyer and all the other celebrity alarmists attending the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco over the next couple of days, this hurricane is like manna from heaven: the worse it gets, the better it is for their scaremongering cause.

Florence is currently a Category 4 but the more optimistic delegates will be hoping it makes Category 5 in the next 24 hours. If they’re really lucky, it will fulfill the Washington Post’s burning desire for winds so strong they merit an entirely new category:

In little more than a day, Hurricane Florence exploded in strength, jumping from a Category 1 to a Category 4 behemoth with 140 mph winds. This process - hurricanes intensifying fast - is both extremely dangerous and poorly understood. But new research says that as the climate continues to warm, storms will do it faster and more often, and in some extreme cases, grow so powerful that they might arguably be labeled “Category 6.”

As usual WaPo’s resident climate hysteric Chris Mooney is talking rubbish.

Roy Spencer puts him right on this blogpost: you can’t talk about worsening hurricanes when the trend shows the opposite:

Attendees of the conference are almost guaranteed to point to Florence as an example of what we can expect more of with global warming. But it’s curious how there hasn’t been a statistically significant increase in major hurricane strikes in the Carolinas (based upon NHC data), even assuming Florence hits as a Cat3+:


(The same is true in Florida.)

The 1950s was the stand-out decade for major hurricane strikes in the Carolinas, with Hurricane Hazel in 1954 doing major damage, even as far north as Toronto. Hazel’s destruction of Myrtle Beach, SC led to a massive rebuilding effort that transformed that community forever.

For sure, there has been an increase in hurricane damages over time, as infrastructure along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts has increased dramatically. There is simply more stuff for Mother Nature to destroy. But I doubt that the luminaries attending the Global Climate Action Summit this week can understand that increasing damages would occur even without any climate change.

Steven Goddard is on the case too - and has a few pertinent points to make. (He has also made an excellent video)

According to Roger Pielke Jr., east coast major hurricanes are down more than 60% over the past 50 years.


The US is just coming off the longest hurricane drought on record.



Meanwhile, the Washington Post is trying to pin responsibility for this weather event on Donald Trump:

Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’
“s systems to produce disasters.

But as Goddard (aka Tony Heller) notes, if it’s really true that U.S. Presidents have the power to create hurricanes, then the worst living offender is George W Bush. The really bad ones are quite beyond the reach of even the most astringent WaPo editorial…

If the Washington Post wants to blame presidents for hurricanes, then the top three perpetrators are Grover Cleveland, Rutherford B. Hayes and William Howard Taft.


HURDAT Re-analysis Chronological List of All Hurricanes

Jun 22, 2018
Pope Francis’s Misguided War on Fossil Fuels

H. Sterling Burnett

It seems that Pope Francis has learned little since his 2015 papal encyclical calling on the world to fight climate change by limiting the use of modern technologies and fossil fuels. At a recent Vatican meeting he called many of the world’s leading oil company executives to the carpet. Francis told the executives they should shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to fight “global warming.”

Pope Francis has myriad misguided beliefs about climate science, almost all of which he holds based on faith alone, as if they were holy writ. Even worse, his belief that society can transition from fossil fuels while reducing hunger and poverty is downright dangerous.

Despite the false claims of climate alarmists, fossil fuels have been a boon to the world. They supply affordable and abundant power for lighting, transportation, refrigeration, clean water, modern agriculture (including food delivery, storage, and protection from early decay and pests), indoor air-conditioning and heating, cooking, and the multitude of other technologies upon which modern societies are based. In attacking fossil fuels, Pope Francis is undermining the very resources and technologies most responsible for raising literally billions of people out of poverty. Coal, natural gas, and oil remain vital to increasing lifespans, decreasing infant mortality, and helping humans generally flourish.

In his brilliant book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein wrote,

“Climate is no longer a major cause of death, thanks in large part to fossil fuels...Not only are we ignoring the big picture by making the fight against climate danger the fixation of our culture, we are ‘fighting’ climate change by opposing the weapon that has made it dozens of times less dangerous. The popular climate discussion...looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability, one who makes the climate dangerous because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is… we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe.”

Pope Francis and many other world leaders ignore this important fact, putting the lives of the world’s most impoverished people at risk.

When espousing his energy doctrine, Pope Francis would do well to adopt the humility and intellectual honesty of William Alsup, the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In a case in which oil companies are being sued by Oakland and San Francisco for causing climate harm, Alsup indicated if he is to consider the potential climate harms caused by the use of oil and gas, he must also examine the huge benefits their use has delivered. Alsup succinctly stated, “We need to weigh in the large benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels. There have been huge benefits.”

Below are a few facts Pope Francis should take to heart before he declares a twenty-first-century crusade against fossil fuels.

In a tutorial prepared for Judge Alsup by Joe Bast, director, and Peter Ferrara, Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute, “The Social Benefit of Fossil Fuels,” they point out fossil fuels provided the energy that powered nearly all the technologies of the Industrial Revolution, as well as plastics, high-tech manufacturing, and mobile computer devices. From 1850 to 2010, fossil fuels spurred a 550 percent increase in the world’s population, and they helped dramatically reduce poverty and hunger. During this period, energy consumption increased fiftyfold and world per-capita energy consumption increased ninefold. Nearly all the world’s increased energy consumption came from fossil fuels.

Furthermore, fossil fuels are integral to mechanized farming (including gasoline- and diesel-powered tractors for planting, fertilizing, harvesting, storing, and for trucks to deliver crops to store shelves), irrigation systems, and in the creation of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that improve and expedite crop growth and prevent loss to weeds, insects, and other pests. Ironically, the natural resources environmentalists detest are actually responsible for the Green Revolution that saved billions of people from hunger during the twentieth century.

Besides increased food production and less global malnutrition, fossil fuels also allow for all the creature comforts that make life more enjoyable and improve health. For example, air-conditioning is powered by electricity - primarily fueled by coal and natural gas. Pope Francis decried this technology in his papal encyclical, but air-conditioning has been an undeniable boon to public health everywhere it is widely used. Air-conditioning prevents thousands of premature deaths from heat-related illnesses each year, saving millions of lives over the past several decades. Refrigeration, also powered by fossil fuels, has kept food and medicine from spoiling, saving millions of additional lives. Almost all home appliances and small devices rely on electricity, and the standard of living has vastly improved because of these devices.

Contra Francis, we can;t afford to have the air-conditioning, refrigeration, lighting, and other technologies in our homes, super markets, businesses, and hospitals work only when the wind blows or the sun shines.

Moreover, fossil fuels are important before, during, and after natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. They reduce the number of people ultimately injured or killed by powering the helicopters, boats, military, police, and utility vehicles sent to restore order and electricity after such devastating events. They also power the vehicles and ambulances that evacuate people from disaster zones, and the semi-trailer trucks that deliver water, food, blankets, and other relief supplies to those who remain. When power lines go down in natural disasters, it is back-up generators, powered by diesel, natural gas, or liquid propane, not rooftop solar or wind turbines, that provide the electricity to apartment buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, and countless shelters.

Communication devices such as cell phones, computers, and radio equipment that keep people connected and informed on an everyday basis (especially during natural disasters) are all made from, manufactured with, and powered by oil and natural gas. Fossil fuels have transformed communication and increased information access on a level unlike anything humanity has witnessed before.

A world without fossil fuels would be a much more brutal place. Until Pope Francis understands the vital role fossil fuels have and should continue to play around the world, he should stick to saving souls rather than pontificating over peoples’ energy choices.

Originally published on American Thinker.

Page 3 of 627 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »