Frank Bosse puts the spotlight on a global warming forecast published by British Met Office scientists in 2007. It appeared in Science. The peer-reviewed paper was authored by Doug M. Smith and colleagues under the title: “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model“. Using sophisticated methods, the target of the paper was to forecast the temperature development from 2004 to 2014 while taking internal variability into account. Now that it’s 2014 and the observed data are in, we can compare to see how Smith et al did with their forecast. Boy, did they fail! --Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 24 June 2014
It’s not that I’m particularly prescient, but today’s headlines, prompted by the latest NOAA press release, rather substantiates the point I was making last week.
The Telegraph (and no doubt many other outlets) report:
Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts have said.
May’s average temperature on Earth of 15.54 degrees Celsius was the warmest since records began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
So let’s recap:
NOAA’s own figures give an error margin for their figures of +/- 0.07C. When this is allowed for, May 2014 statistically joins an eight-way tie as the hottest May, all since 1998. The other years being:
Alarmist claims about the impact of global warming are contributing to a loss of trust in climate scientists, an inquiry has found. Apocalyptic language has been used about greenhouse gas emissions as “a deliberate strategy by some to engage public interest”. However, trying to make people reduce emissions by frightening them has “harmful consequences” because they often respond suspiciously or decide the issue is “too scary to think about”. The inquiry concludes: “Alarmist messages that fail to materialise contribute to the loss of trust in the science community.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 24 June 2014
Global warming science and climate policy face a severe and deepening crisis of credibility. The whole climate agenda is confronted by growing doubt and criticism, not least as a result of the so-called Climategate scandal, the Copenhagen fiasco and the revelations about the IPCC's alarmist claims based on unreliable sources. The scientific community is haemorrhaging integrity and authority at an unprecedented speed and scale. What we are witnessing is a growing backlash over the suppression of scientific data, the exaggeration of global warming impacts and the maltreatment of climate critics. --Benny Peiser, The Observer 7 February 2010
White House officials and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will meet Wednesday with Tom Steyer, a billionaire and top climate-change activist who has become one of the leading opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Reuters reported.
The meeting comes as the Obama administration pushes its climate-change agenda harder than ever, and a day after Mr. Steyer and his partners in the "Risky Business Project" released a new report showing the purported economic consequences of climate change.
The project, chaired by Mr. Steyer — who made a fortune as a hedge fund manager — former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, unveiled its lengthy study on Tuesday.
It predicts, among other things, between $66 billion and $106 billion in coastal property will be below sea level by 2050.
The Supreme Court failed to roll back the EPA's regulatory excess and is keeping most of the White House's carbon dioxide rules in place. The decision is doubly disappointing given the latest warming data.
Justice Antonin Scalia simplified the effect of the court's ruling in writing that the Environmental Protection Agency "is getting almost everything it wanted in this case."
"It sought to regulate sources it said were responsible for 86% of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide," he noted. But under the court's holdings, "EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83% of those emissions."
There's no reason to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at any level. We've made this case many times, and our argument was supported over the weekend when it was shown that the temperature record has been doctored to make it appear that Earth is warming. The charge was made Sunday in an entry in the Real Science blog .
Those who don’t believe in climate change are “a threat to the future,” says the Washington Post in a June 14 article on President Obama’s commencement address for the University of California-Irvine. Regarding the speech, the Associated Press reported: “President Obama said denying climate change is like arguing the moon is made of cheese.” He declared: “Scientists have long established that the world needs to fight climate change.”
The emphasis on a single government policy strays far from the flowery rhetoric found at the traditional graduation ceremony—especially in light of the timing. While the president was speaking, all of the progress made by America’s investment of blood and treasure in Iraq was under immediate threat. And, as I pointed out last week, what is taking place right now in Iraq has the potential of an imminent impact to our economic security. Instead of addressing the threat now, why is he talking about “a threat to the future” that might happen in the next 100 years?
The answer, I believe, is found later in his comments.
The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
A divided Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration Monday from requiring permits for some industries that spew greenhouse gases, but the ruling won't prohibit other means of regulating the pollutant that causes global warming.
The court's conservative wing ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority by changing the emissions threshold for greenhouse gases in the Clean Air Act. That action can only be taken by Congress, the justices said.
The 5-4 ruling, which partially reverses a 2012 federal appeals court decision, represents a moral victory for industry and state government opponents of the federal regulations. They have complained that the rules could cost billions of dollars to implement and threaten thousands of jobs.
First broke by canadian scientist Steven Goddard, then picked up by the Telegraph, American Thinker, and elsewhere, NOAA's use of fictional temperatures is creating quite a stir. Likely to be tossed off as just another "phony" scandal, Goddard shows how NOAA's temperature data is plucked out of thin air and that global cooling has been happening since 1930. Of course they'll get cleared of any wrongdoing if history is any indication, so don't wait for this to pick up too much steam with the MSM. From American Thinker:
The most amazing and costly scientific and financial fraud of all time is being exposed, bit by bit, and yet serious and intelligent people continue to cling to the fraudsters’ story. Writing in the UK Telegraph, Christopher Booker brings to light a starling discovery: that the world has actually been cooling since the 1930s, based on actual temperature observations.
…another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Progressives believe in free speech, robust debate, sound science and economics, transparency, government by the people and especially compassion for the poor – except when they don’t. These days, their commitment to these principles seems to be at low ebb … in both Washingtons.
A perfect example is the Oregon and Washington governors’ determined effort to enact Low Carbon Fuel Standards – via deceptive tax-funded campaigns, tilted legislative processes and executive fiat.
The standards require that conventional vehicle fuels be blended with alternative manmade fuels said to have less carbon in their chemical makeup or across the life cycle of creating and using the fuels. They comport with political viewpoints that oppose hydrocarbon use, prefer mass transit, are enchanted by the idea of growing fuels instead of drilling and fracking for them, and/or are convinced that even slightly reduced carbon dioxide will help reduce or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change.”
IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’
The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable. In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold, which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind this century.
After more than 25 years reporting and commenting on this topic for various media organizations, and having started out alarmed, that’s where I have ended up. But it is not just I that hold this view. I share it with a very large international organization, sponsored by the United Nations and supported by virtually all the world’s governments: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself.