Evidence Global Warming is real and is happening.

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...729-10weq.html

THE world is "unequivocally" getter hotter and has been for more than 30 years, according to the most comprehensive study of temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean.

The report, compiled by the British Met Office and its US equivalent, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides the "greatest evidence we have ever had" to support global warming, its researchers say.
__________________________________________________ _________________

Will the deniers continue to deny the facts?

Chook.

[Guest]

Figure Fudgers the lot of them

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/aus...-40/#more-9646

Australian warming trend adjusted UP by 40%




...
Ken has been a very busy man. Another soul in the dedicated army of volunteer auditors. He’s been going through the entire Australian High Quality Data Set as supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). He’s been assisted by two readers from this site — Lance and Janama — and we’ll be looking to increase the team (see below).

In the State of the Climate report, both the BOM and CSIRO told us that “since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C. The long term trend in temperature is clear… ” but as usual, what they didn’t say was that the raw data since 1910 (not just from 1960) increased only 0.6°C.

The BOM claim their adjustments are random and neutral. Yet when Ken looked at the raw data from Australia’s 100 high quality rural sites, the adjustments increased the trend in the raw data by 40% — from a 0.6°C rise over 100 years, to 0.85°C over 100 years.

In an email to Ken, Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, made a clear claim that the adjustments had no real effect:

“On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).”
Once again, the adjusted data shows a temperature change of 0.25°C.



Raw anomalies and high quality anomalies. Australian data 1910 - 2010. Blue line - raw data. Red line - adjusted data.

…

Perhaps there are good reasons for all these corrections. But if Ken’s analysis is right, the adjustments themselves account for a third of the reported warming trend in Australia.

Since the adjustments are so influential, BOM and CSIRO need to explain clearly why each adjustment is necessary, station by station. Ken graphed the full set. While some adjustments are cooling, the vast majority are warming, and some of the adjustments are as much as 1 whole degree.

…


Adjustments to raw Australian temperature records station by station. Median adjustment is 0.275. More adjustments are warming (red) rather than cooling (blue).




Rural now, used to be urban?
BOM claim that the top 100 stations are all pure “rural” (and obviously less likely to be affected by the urban heat island effect):

“Please note: Stations classified as urban are excluded from the Australian annual temperature timeseries and trend map analyses. Urban stations have some urban influence during part or all of their record.” [Source]

But 15 sites that are included used to be classed as urban at some point in the past. But BOM implies that they only include stations that were never affected by urban influences.

The full list is: Cairns AMO, Rockhampton AMO, Gladstone MO, Port Hedland AMO, Roebourne, Geraldton AMO, Albany AMO, Alice Springs AMO, Strathalbyn, Mount Gambier AMO, Richmond AMO, Mildura AMO, East Sale AMO, Cashmore Airport, Launceston Airport.
Stations were originally supposed to have 80 years of data records, but the newer analysis of Della-Marta et al have included six stations with less, including three that started after 1950.

…


The number of stations with data available for each year
Note that only 70% of raw data is available for 1910; 90% by 1930; another drop from 1945 to 1960; and the huge drop off in HQ data this decade.
Ken concludes:


This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based. Problems with the High Quality data include:

It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
The warming bias in the temperature trend is 40%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
It is most urgent and important that we have a full scientific investigation, completely independent of BOM, CSIRO, or the Department of Climate Change, into the official climate record of Australia.



We are awaiting a reply from the BOM with much interest.

The full post at Kens Kingdom

Janama was involved in looking at the NSW data and commented at WUWT:

There is site called Bourke Airport in New South Wales – it’s listed as a Rural Site as it is out of town and is therefore included in the national temperature analysis.

Yet Bourke Airport was established in 1999 and has only 9 years of data! So where did the data from 1910 – 1999 come from? Well it matches perfectly with Brewarrina Hospital 80kms away in the heart of Brewarrina that has a record back to 1910 – well it’s not an exact match because the earlier years have been systematically adjusted downwards along with the typical rural town UHI influence yet it’s included as Rural!

The same technique has been used for Glenn Innes airport which was established in 1997 yet by using the Glenn Innes Post Office data with it’s typical UHI ( increasing min temp) they have a record going back to 1910 yet it’s also classified as Rural.

I only studied NSW but I’m pretty sure it is similar throughout the country.

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...729-10weq.html

THE world is "unequivocally" getter hotter and has been for more than 30 years, according to the most comprehensive study of temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean.

The report, compiled by the British Met Office and its US equivalent, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides the "greatest evidence we have ever had" to support global warming, its researchers say.
__________________________________________________ _________________

Will the deniers continue to deny the facts?

Chook.

Give it a rest.

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...729-10weq.html

THE world is "unequivocally" getter hotter and has been for more than 30 years, according to the most comprehensive study of temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean.

The report, compiled by the British Met Office and its US equivalent, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides the "greatest evidence we have ever had" to support global warming, its researchers say.
__________________________________________________ _________________

Will the deniers continue to deny the facts?

Chook.

Give it a rest.

[Guest]

Give it a rest.

That is precisely what the deniers want which is why I refuse to let this important subject lie or be subverted by the ill-informed like rcptn. It's happening shadow, whether you ignore it or believe it is irrelevant.

The globe is warming, fact! Anyone that tells you any different is a liar or is willfully ignorant, fact! There is a better than 90% chance mankind is directly responsible for or at the very least contributing to that warming through the burning of fossils fuels, fact!

Yet we have brain dead farking morons in our media like Andrew Bolt, Allan Jones and their willfuly ignorant ilk telling us "nothing to see here"! And that is what pisses me off the most. These idiots are willfully ignoring the issue and misleading the Australian population on it. And people like rcptn fall for it hook line and sinker.

In many aspects I hope mankind doesn't do anything about it and we see the effects in my lifetime cause then at least I can die knowing that as a species we were simply too farking stupid to exist.

Chook.

[Guest]

That is precisely what the deniers want which is why I refuse to let this important subject lie or be subverted by the ill-informed like rcptn. It's happening shadow, whether you ignore it or believe it is irrelevant.

The globe is warming, fact! Anyone that tells you any different is a liar or is willfully ignorant, fact! There is a better than 90% chance mankind is directly responsible for or at the very least contributing to that warming through the burning of fossils fuels, fact!

Yet we have brain dead farking morons in our media like Andrew Bolt, Allan Jones and their willfuly ignorant ilk telling us "nothing to see here"! And that is what pisses me off the most. These idiots are willfully ignoring the issue and misleading the Australian population on it. And people like rcptn fall for it hook line and sinker.

In many aspects I hope mankind doesn't do anything about it and we see the effects in my lifetime cause then at least I can die knowing that as a species we were simply too farking stupid to exist.

Chook.

An apt description of yourself chook

[Guest]

An apt description of yourself chook

Fark off you idiot! We both know who is right and who is an ignorant moron who cannot admit he was wrong about something he believed in so deeply. What burns you the most rcptn, that you were wrong or that you were so easily sucked into to believe the bullshit spin?

Did you know the so called "climategate" scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing by 3 separate and independent investigations?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...727-10t5i.html

You were a putz rcptn, a gullible, easily mislead putz, fact! You can either recognise that and open you eyes to the truth or ignore it. Your choice, but it won't change the facts.

Chook.

[Guest]

Fark off you idiot! We both know who is right and who is an ignorant moron who cannot admit he was wrong about something he believed in so deeply. What burns you the most rcptn, that you were wrong or that you were so easily sucked into to believe the bullshit spin?

Did you know the so called "climategate" scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing by 3 separate and independent investigations?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...727-10t5i.html

You were a putz rcptn, a gullible, easily mislead putz, fact! You can either recognise that and open you eyes to the truth or ignore it. Your choice, but it won't change the facts.

Chook.

They stacked those investigations with Global Warmist groupies mate it was a whitewash.

[Guest]

They stacked those investigations with Global Warmist groupies mate it was a whitewash.

How utterly predicable, more of your conspiracy theory bullshit! You again prove just how gullible you are.

"Three inquiries were set up to examine the scientists' conduct.

The first, a British House of Commons select committee, reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact. The second, a science assessment panel, set up with the Royal Society and consisting of eminent British researchers, reported in April.

Its chairman, Lord Oxburgh, said his team found ''absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever'' and that ''whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly''.

The third, set up by the university itself, published its 160-page report two weeks ago. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of the CRU scientists, ''we find that the rigour and honesty [of the scientists] as scientists are not in doubt''. Importantly, it concluded: ''We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.''

You were wrong, admit it.

Chook.

[Guest]

The Royal Society of Scotland has/had pro global Warming propaganda all over there website when I get time later I'll go and find the evidence

[Guest]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-up-continues/

I'm on dialup until the end of the month so it would take forever to input all the links into the story below. If you want to visit them just visit the article I have provided.

Climategate: the official cover-up continues

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: February 12th, 2010

297 Comments Comment on this article

If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled”, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

The latest example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry” into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie – seen here on its official website.

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

By what bizarre logic, then, did Sir Muir think it a good idea to appoint to his panel the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the wake of Climategate:

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Dr Campbell has since resigned his post – and rightly so, as the Global Warming Policy Foundation makes clear. But are we to feel any more confident about the alleged neutrality of another of Sir Muir’s appointments, Professor Geoffrey Boulton?

Bishop Hill certainly doesn’t think so. He notes that Professor Boulton….

spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
says the argument over climate change is over
tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.
You wonder, if Sir Muir really is that determined to keep his inquiry totally unbiased, independent, above-board and scrupulously neutral why he just doesn’t go the whole hog and appoint Al Gore, James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri. I doubt the conclusions they’d reach would be any different.

[Guest]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19987


Climategate Investigators Are Global Warming Buddies!
A Climategate Over Climategate?
By Barry Napier Saturday, February 13, 2010
With the fraudulent background to climate claims, we should not have expected anything else - we now find the chosen Climategate Inquiry team of five men consisted of at least two pro-climate change scientists! The scandals just keep on coming – the climate garbage is building up on either side of the information highway, and the rats are still spreading their disease.



Boulton the Fifth-Columnist
We should have known the climate inquiry would be slanted. One of the team, Prof Geofrey Boulton, is called upon to resign because he is not impartial. Another panel member has already quit. Boulton, it has been discovered, believes climate change is caused by human activity, making him very unsuitable to be part of an inquiry team. (The Scotsman, 13th Feb 2010).

As the Editorial (13th Feb) of The Scotsman newspaper reminds us, members of the Inquiry had to “have no prejudicial interest” or “predetermined view” on climate change. Boulton and the other members knew this, and yet they remained quiet, pretending to be impartial. This is just what we have come to expect from the sneaky, dark side of pseudo-science.

Even better, Boulton worked for 18 years at East Anglia University, the same university of which the Climate Research Unit is a part! For reasons that are not acceptable, the Inquiry is to be held in private – easy to then hide facts and truth and disseminate lies, once again. As The Scotsman said “Sir Muir (Russell) may well have prejudiced the outcome before the inquiry has even started.” I think we can strike-out the words “may well have”… it began as a lie and would have exonerated Jones and pals by sleight-of-hand.

As Dr Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse said “The Russell panel is in need of complete overhaul before it can be taken seriously.” (CCNet-News, 12th Feb). We can only be thankful that the full texts of emails were issued before self-interested scientists tried to remove them from view.

Andrew Montford (13th Feb) said that a “major question mark” is now over the whole of the Russell Review as about half of the five-man panel have been shown “to be wildly unsuitable”. He added: “many will conclude that Muir Russell has set out to produce a predetermined result, not to reach the truth. Maybe they need to start again.” Too darn tootin’! It was another attempt to commit fraud and to mislead. The government and Jones et al have too much to lose in all this. They will try to influence any panel along their own lines. Muir need not ‘start again’ – just get rid of him and find men who will genuinely be impartial.

We can see that the people who set up the inquiry team are just as competent and truthful as the IPCC – neither checks the facts or the truth, and neither care anyway.

Jones… Trying to Wriggle Again
In an attempt to wriggle out of his part in the worldwide science scandal, Phil Jones now admits the “debate has not been settled” and that there were two periods of warming in the Medieval period. (He fails to say they were much, much warmer). (BBC News, 12th Feb). That’s a start, but still not good enough, because he still says warming (the warming that has not occurred for the past 12 years and was extremely minor anyway) is predominantly man-made. He can stick to that only because no-one can ever prove it!

Like Boulton, Jones said the “argument regarding climate change is over”. The other resigned scientist, Dr Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature magazine (another pro-warming publication) was so ‘unbiased’ he recently gave an interview to Chinese radio saying that he defended the CRU scientists. I find it incredible that Muir blatantly told reporters that the team were unbiased! I think Muir and his panellists were just arrogant pro-warmists who believe they can still get away with their lies. Now it is time to discredit and get rid of them all.

Jones told the BBC he thought some of his weather data was ‘not well enough organised’. That might wash with ordinary TV viewers, but not with others. He was a professor for goodness sake! His Unit advised governments and was one of the top three sources used by the IPCC! He was not a messy filing clerk, but a highly-trained and expert scientist!!

However, his language was tempered slightly when he said climate warming was “most likely” caused by humans. That is a big climb-down from the more pedantic ‘is caused by humans’. He probably sees his demise coming fast and now is trying to change his tune, with subtle shades of difference. However, his note, that the Medieval warming period “had experienced similar warming” is rather out of sync with reality – it was very much warmer for a long time. The warming we had in the 1900s was just a tiny blip by comparison, hardly registered on the tables, and nothing to get alarmed over.

Jones also ‘admitted’ his paperwork was not as it should be. This is another gross distortion of the facts. A man of his status, running a world-known unit, would be on top of his game. It is what credentials and credibility rely on! To blame things on bad paperwork is hilariously foolish.

Jones also admitted that scientists who claim warming exists, must do more to show why they say so, and must be more transparent. He is only saying that after he has been found out, trying to be more PR friendly.

One question… he says January was the warmest since 1979. He is telling that to a world frozen solid. Britain has had snow and ice, often well below zero, for the past two months. If that’s warmest, could he please tell me why my gas and electricity bills show the exact opposite?

[Guest]

How many farking times do I have to say that all these posts and links you provide to your conspiracy theory bullshit spin merchants don't prove a thing!! I'm not as stupid as you to believe this crap. THEY PROVE NOTHING!!!!

The world is warming, you were wrong, admit it.

Chook.

[Guest]

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiri...ange/index.htm

This is the mob that did the so called independent inquiry into climategate. They are pro AGW if you look at there website.

[Guest]

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiri...ange/index.htm

This is the mob that did the so called independent inquiry into climategate. They are pro AGW if you look at there website.

Stop with this conspiracy bullshit please. If you have nothing that disproves the findings of the investigations just say so. This constant, CONSTANT conspiracy crap you post is nothing.

I post about peer reviewed research and facts and you post the above bullshit. What part of I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CONSPIRACY SHIT don't you understand??????

The globe is warming, you were wrong, admit it.

Chook.