catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Hide the Decline, again

with 115 comments

The ClimateGate story is on a slow burn. As the data and programs get analysed so the emails take on new significance. The data are starting to look very ugly. The Mail had a great graphic on what the original ‘hide the decline’ was hiding. James Delingpole at the UK Telegraph reports

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

This makes the following email very interesting (emphasis added).

Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of Keith’s work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn’t always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He’s now looking at homogenization techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well.
Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren’t that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

So far everyone is making a fuss over the fact that Jones gets to review papers that criticise his own work, quite rightly – how’s that for corruption – but he admits ‘the decline’ is on all over the northern hemisphere. Again he might have an excellent explanation, but again we would like to hear that explanation.

Update: While the original Hide the decline post is down due to our technical problem, I thought I’d repost it here. This is to counter the lie Homer has just posted in the comments section – “a link that sinkers said was not available”. Nowhere do I say a link is not available rather I suggest that some explanation is due. An explanation that is still outstanding.

There is an interesting piece on the Darwin temperature station posted at Watts up with that.

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.
To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

I’m sure there is an explanation for this, and I’d like to hear it.

Advertisements

Written by Sinclair Davidson

December 18, 2009 at 7:56 am

Posted in Uncategorized

115 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. whilst this blog was down I visited LP.

    Imagine my surprise when I was able to directly get evidence on why Darwin has two sets of figures.
    Brian Banisch was able to get a link that sinkers said was not available.

    Moreover the explanation from BOM was perfectly reasonable.

    Sinkers simply has no credibility went it comes to linking stories apart from the fact they usually are stories for the Statistically challenged around here.

    I take back saying Catallaxy was as bad as LP.

    LP is far ahead of Catallaxy in quality.

    Catallaxy has gone from being the CIS of blogs to the IPA

    Butterfiled, Bloomfielf & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 8:46 am

  2. The issue of BOM weather stations was covered years ago, during the time when they switched over to automatic.

    But its pointless arguing facts when Plimer is a posterboy

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 10:44 am

  3. So what is this Moscow “Institute of Economic Analysis”?

    Let me guess..part of the ICCF

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 10:57 am

  4. and?

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 18, 2009 at 11:03 am

  5. This is Plimeresque in its obliqueness, because some “think tank” in Moscow makes an unfounded allegation which is published in the UK papers this “think tank” and its unfounded allegations has achieved legitimacy.

    The evidence is in your link “had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.”

    Probably?

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 11:24 am

  6. What? What’s Plimer have to do with CRU? Another on message comment from Rog.

    ——-

    Homer this site doesn’t have to be down for you to “visit” LP, as it’s just a click away.

    ——–

    Interesting interaction here from the Eastwooders. One’s talking about Darwin and liking another website while the other is talking about Plimer and Russia going autmomatic meanwhile the thread is about Russia’s Institute claiming CRU had basically falsified data reporting.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 11:25 am

  7. “Russia’s Institute claiming CRU had basically falsified data reporting.”

    which, without evidence you believe to be true

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 11:32 am

  8. it’s serious accusation, which goes along with what i’ve been saying for the past few weeks since we found the British unit being dishonest. That is the entire data set needs to be audited and verified.

    Pound for pound the Russian institute wouldn’t be sticking their dick on the chopping block as they realize their accusation can be easily verified. So if I were going to take a bet I would bet on the Russian story having legs although I’m not certain.

    Unlike you though I wouldn’t believe anything the British unit says as they can’t be trusted and I’m not that gullible.

    What’s Plimer have to with it?

    Is he Russian?

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 11:41 am

  9. rog – there is (now) a probability greater than zero that the CRU have falsified their results. Even extremists like George Monbiot believes there is a problem at the CRU. Right now the issue is how big is the problem, not whether there is a problem. In an environment such as this, i.e. a collapse in trust, it is important that the CRU defend themselves against all sorts of allegations that just one month ago could have been rejected as spurious conspiracy theory. Now to be sure it could all be false, lies propagated by denialists and the Russian mafia or whoever to smear the science. But the leaked documents are raising more and more issues that need to be answered. As I keep saying, there may be a reasonable explanation so lets hear it.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 18, 2009 at 11:50 am

  10. JC – don’t know why you’re arguing on the computer right now – you’re supposed to be at my place in 20 10 minutes.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 18, 2009 at 11:51 am

  11. Beats me why you choose to believe the allies of Putin, link

    Last night a spokesman for the Hadley Centre said its scientists did not choose which weather stations to collect its data from. “The World Meteorological Organisation chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don’t pick them so we can’t be accused of fixing the data. We are confident in the accuracy of our report.”

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 11:58 am

  12. I would say that probably climategate was orchestrated by shadowy business interests, intent on derailing Copengagen, using Russian hackers to invade the emails of woolly headed academic types.

    I know this to be true because I read it on the internet.

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  13. Two weeks ago, Rog and Homer – the Barnum and Bailey of political analysis – were saying Turnbull would probably be prime minister because everyone loved the ETS and we had to shape up for the looming Copenhagen consensus.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  14. C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  15. No CL I have never said Turnbull would win the next election.

    It is as accurate as saying the planet isn’t warming

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  16. New leak – this time from the UN:

    Hey, all that stuff on the table at Copenhagen won’t make any difference anyway.

    Reading that report (and others) is utterly hilarious, by the way, as the deluded shamans of warmenism discuss whether they’ll create a 1.5 degree increase in the planet’s temperature or a 2 degree rise. It’s like they’re ordering a t-shit online and aren’t quite sure whether to tick medium or large. Seriously, anyone who believes this nonsense requires psychological counselling.

    Meanwhile, revered climate scientist George Monbiot declares:

    “I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs.”

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  17. rog just doesn’t get it, does he?

    Government funding is far more corrupting of science than funding from private organisations.

    In any case, teh joke here that some ‘big-oil’ money has been funding the warmist cause.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  18. CL,
    I have never said that the Libs could win the next election.

    I did say putting up a AGW denialist will lead to a dramatic loss.
    Only moonbats are denialists

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  19. Have a Captain Cook at this idiot.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  20. Heartbroken warmenists to shave their heads – just like the Manson family.

    It’s a religious cult.

    And sadly, with Rudd’s pink batts death toll alone, the cult has killed more people than “climate change.”

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  21. Government funding is far more corrupting of science than funding from private organisations.

    I’m sorry I’ve just never understood exactly what reasoning lies behind this. Would you care to elucidate? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Adrien

    December 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  22. Sinkers hide is just to great.

    I asked whether the BOM provided an explanation or wirds to that effect.

    Through the much higher quality LP I was able to use a link to find out why they gave out both sets of data.

    you know this was the data Sinkers allegedly says there is no explanation for.

    Why did Sinkers say this when it was there for anybody to view and read.

    Sinkers nose gets bigger each time he writes anything

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  23. I can’t remember an issue in my lifetime that has produced so much foolishness.
    Sure, these people C.L. links to are part of the sideshow but in the main arena it’s almost as bad.
    Did anyone seriously expect COP15 to achieve anything of substance?
    Firstly, there are too many delegates and too many disparate interests to expect a deal.
    Second, international conferences are usually choreographed, with the work having been done before opening day. Obviously this did not happen.
    And most importantly, no democratic government is or ever was going to agree to anything that inflicts significant pain on its electorate, except by accident.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  24. Al Gore now reading his warmening religious poem during TV interviews.

    Related:

    Al Gore’s reading of his Global Warming poem moves Glenn Beck to tears.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  25. Beats me why you choose to believe the allies of Putin, link

    Beats me why you have difficulties with comprehension. No one is saying who to believe. All we want to see is what CRU says about the accusation and is able to demonstrate the veracity of its figures.

    At this stage no representation made my CRU can be trusted.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  26. I hope the folks who are going to shave their heads have hats, it’s getting mighty cold over there

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  27. At the Copengahen climate change communism revitalisation conference…

    Lord Monckton barred from Copenhagen conference – pushed to the ground by security.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  28. It’s a pretty strange conference when Penny Wong gets booed because her views are too right wing.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  29. Loony tunes:

    GLOBAL temperature rises must be kept to a 2C cap and billions of dollars of climate funds must be given to poor countries, sources reported an early draft declaration at the Copenhagen talks as saying.

    Politicians who can’t balance their budgets are going to balance the planet’s temperature while giving money to Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chavez.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  30. Greenspan echoes Barnaby: “…the United States must quickly begin to erase red ink to avert possible disaster.”

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  31. “The issue of BOM weather stations was covered years ago, during the time when they switched over to automatic.”

    Did this switch occur during the 1930s/40s? No. And as if that were the preeminent problem. If the raw and the adjusted datasets are as reliable as you imagine then there is nothing to be lost by having them inspected by independent scientists and statisticians and having the data (raw and adjusted) and the method of adjustment (incl. the source code) publicly available.

    “Beats me why you choose to believe the allies of Putin”

    Beats me why anyone would simply take the word of anyone else (incl. the CRU). The motto of the Royal Society is “nullius in verba”; sound advice.

    dover_beach

    December 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  32. Greenpeace prediction on warmening: “…a dozen of countries will simply disappear from the map of the world.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/18/2776169.htm

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  33. Lambert Watch: Shines does a parody of himself.

    The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by novelist James Delingpole ……….

    Shines thinks it’s important to mention Delingpole’s day job.

    Shiny’s source is often been a truffle farmer in New Zealand that he links to in a moment of searching for real science.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm

  34. Hey DB, see that little red dot on your telly? – it’s them you know, they are watching you.

    The Darwin post office was bombed during WW2 – the postmaster was also the weather recorder. He was killed and the records destroyed.

    Not only was the method of data collection changed, they moved it to a new location.

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  35. 3 degrees C? Temperatures since 2001 still fall below the projections of the IPCC AR4 of 0.2 degrees C/decade (2 degrees C/ century) and these guys are now saying its going to be 3 degrees C with the cuts currently on the table? Chutzpah indeed.

    dover_beach

    December 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  36. Rog:

    I’ve been patiently waiting for week now expecting you to give an answer why you think nuclear energy is not as carbon friendly as generally thought by the scientific community.

    Have you come up with a reply or are you going to obfiscate the need for an apology by bringing up Plimer, Julie Bishop’s hairdryer or your recently strange emotive missive about a limbless man sliding backwards along the Kakoda trial.

    Come up with the explanation without the downmarket snarks or just apologize.

    Man- up Rog or this will go into a special insert in Wikihomer right next to the Skanke ho chapters.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  37. Have you JC?

    You are the veritable model of patience.

    Stupid too

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  38. Have another B&H

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  39. hey rog,

    that is news to Sinkers.

    The physical changing of weather stations is something that has to be always examined.

    It is one of the reasons why raw data is different to adjusted data.

    It is very easy to get papers on why they do this but Sinkers is stil searching

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  40. Here is ex expert Plimer addressing a tiny crowd of geriatric deniers on Perth weather; “”It’s been freezing in Perth and bucketing down,”

    Unfortunately the records show that “average rainfall was below average this winter and this weekend is forecast to be blistering hot with 37C tipped for Saturday and 38C for Sunday.”

    But hey, so what?

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  41. “Hey DB, see that little red dot on your telly? – it’s them you know, they are watching you.”

    Interesting, rog reduces the motto of Royal Society to paranoia.

    “The Darwin post office was bombed during WW2 – the postmaster was also the weather recorder. He was killed and the records destroyed. Not only was the method of data collection changed, they moved it to a new location.”

    Yes, it moved from the Post Office to the Airport after the raid on Darwin in 1941. I know both those pieces of information (BTW, both these pieces of information are a red herring because the GHCN dataset does not adjust for location moves, or changes in instrumentation, etc.) What needs to explained are step changes that appear in the GHCN adjustments in approx. 1930 (+0.5C), 1950 (+0.5C), 1965 (+0.75C), and just after 1980 (+0.5C). In other words, the adjustments both preceded and proceeded the station move by approx. a decade.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

    Further, the slope post-1941 station move is +6 C/ century. Does anyone really believe that Darwin has warmed by more than 3 C since WW2?

    As Sinc says, there may be a reasonable explanation for this, but please, lets see it; if only for our children, and our children’s children.

    BTW, there is series of excellent posts on homogenization of data written by Briggs here:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1459

    dover_beach

    December 18, 2009 at 6:18 pm

  42. Rog:
    if you’re going with the downmarket, lowrent snark you should at least try to have something of substance to say at times rather than focusing on hairdryers.

    I guess you really don’t have any evidence for your claim and will chalk this one down next to the skanke ho comment that will please homer to no end, as he won’t be alone there.

    I see Homer is noticing you and attempting to get you on his side which really isn’t a good sign.

    ———–

    Homes talking about data and evidence has me speechless.

    Next up: Rog and Homer talking about Climate science and the need for the government to post the cost retreaded car tires on Retread Watch.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm

  43. Andrew Bolt points us to a long winded, blathering letter to Pachauri signed by none other than Lord Monckton and our very own Senator Steve Fielding. (Talk about people who were destined for each other.)

    http://tinyurl.com/yedk7l6

    I love the tone of the penultimate paragraph, threatening investigation by “the authorities” for fraud if he does not respond within 48 hours. I’m sure he’s dropped everything to deal with these dropkicks. (And did our government pay for Fielding to attend? If they did, can the plane leave without him?)

    steve from brisbane

    December 18, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  44. Steve from B, you have no problem with the allegations of several conflicts of interests re Pachauri?

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

    Is it once more: Move along, nothing to see here?

    Pachauri is so afraid of the warmening that he once flew back to India for the afternoon to watch the Indian criket team train.

    dover_beach

    December 18, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  45. Pachauri’s the railway engineer who once boasted about flying to India from New York to watch cricket practice.

    His latest idea was that restaurants should ban ice cubes. The hypocritical fakir believes this will stop the imaginary “climate crisis.”

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  46. Dr. Patch is also giving a paid for (no doubt) climate talk though one of the I- banks.

    Cl, I’ll be away so do you want to access code to join in the discussion and question time?

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 6:45 pm

  47. How can I make Margaritas without ice?

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm

  48. DB, answers rog-the-dodge, who goes away hiding behind the garage with Homer hoping everyone forgets his latest stupid foray into a subject he knows as little about as Homer knows about economics.

    ——–

    I still can’t get over Homer talking about data and evidence. This is a new low into the climate science debate.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 6:48 pm

  49. I hope the delegates get snowned in and have to spend Christmas with Chavez,that’ll learn ’em

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  50. I really can’t believe how anyone could take the shit that’s going on in Copey with any seriousness, Tal.

    They invited the NGO’s to give the Festival a bit of an Olympics feel to it trying to legitimize the crap by safety with numbers not realizing that if you end up spending time with too many dogs you’ll get fleas.

    They actually had the nerve to allow Chavez, Uncle A and African thug speaking time lecturing the free world and beating up on free enterprise to standing ovations.

    In between those three stooges walks in our PM and wheels out the kids.

    This is freaking madness.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  51. Hey JC, whilst we are talkin freakin madness…

    ..Catallaxy is now part of the Russian disinformation web…which you tacitly support

    …freakin mad man

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm

  52. Actually Snoopy there is a variation in temperatures between where the various stations were located in Darwin as there were in NZ indeed it happens all over the globe.
    Peterson and Vose write a very good paper on the subject.

    You actually have to know where they are located.
    Snoopy asks a question which was asked by Razor at LP.
    It is a question asked by someone who believes that temperature doesn’t vary much when in fact it does.

    There was a couple of very good answers to why that was the case at LP.

    I do note Sinkers still cannot explain why he couldn’t find an explanation yet it was aired during the previous NZ temperature fiasco when a similar lack of understanding of why raw data was adjusted.
    Mysteriously this was never covered at Catallaxy

    [Every time you lie Homer, I’m going to pick you up. I did cover the official New Zealand explanation – they claimed that they moved one station in the 1920s and that explained the adjustment. I say ‘bullshit’. Sinc]

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 18, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  53. dover_beach reminds me of the Michael Palin sketch on the most boring man in the world.

    As a boy his parents ran away and joined the circus.

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  54. Not to mention the Prince (well known expert on feminine hygene products).It’s a godamn circus. If they want folks to take this sort of thing seriously tell the clowns to stay home.

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  55. Temperature varies from location to location, the stations at Richmond vary between the airport and the UWS even though they are only a few k’s apart.

    And if the RAAF are doing manouvres things dont get checked

    or if a RAAF dog drinks the water from the epan it’s a dry day

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  56. No, Dr P doesn’t impress me much at all. But the tone and conclusion of that letter is still ridiculous. I can see Monckton’s eyes bugging out in indignation as he wrote it with a glass of claret in hand.

    steve from brisbane

    December 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  57. Prince Charles is a distraction for most people but then again the issue is, or should be, above pettiness.

    rog

    December 18, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  58. rog I can’t take these things seriously.

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 7:46 pm

  59. Homes;

    What were the adjustments and the methods used to make the adjustments and who adjudicated those?

    ———-

    It’s a fine day in hell when Homer is giving lessons in climate science by being the man in between linking it all up at LP and then bringing it here for review.

    Homes is now the web equivalent of the DHL man but without the IQ.

    Meanwhile Rog accuses DB of being boring when he presents evidence for his argument which leaves him like the limbless man on the Kokoda trail he (Rog) was emoting about.

    It’s like Dumb and Dumber with these two but without the humor.

    Scene 1

    Homer gets his tongue glued to a post on a hot day and Rog yanks him away leaving 1/2 of it still stuck there, which they both use as evidence of agw.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  60. Prince Charles is a distraction for most people but then again the issue is, or should be, above pettiness.

    Says, Rog who refers to DB as boring for answering the issue and uses that as some sort of argument.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  61. Steve:

    Throws Doc. Patch under the bus, but thinks Monckton is worse.

    Monckton of course is an idiot that can be ignored, but Steve-from-the-deep-north somehow equates an idiot having no real legitimate authority with the Head of the IPCC who really does appear to be dishonest and 100% conflicted.

    This is climate science debate in all its splendor.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  62. ladies and gentlemen welcome to “The night of the zombies”, a play by David Williamson about three pretty stupid people.

    Temperature varies from location to location, the stations at Richmond vary between the airport and the UWS even though they are only a few k’s apart.

    And if the RAAF are doing manouvres things dont get checked

    or if a RAAF dog drinks the water from the epan it’s a dry day

    Meanwhile Rog offers the methodology behind the adjustments forgetting that the adjustment from the Darwin station were up and not down as his assertion incorrectly implies seeing the real data was trending lower.

    Are the three of you wearing T-shirts showing a hand pointing with the caption “I’m with stupid”.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  63. No, Dr P doesn’t impress me much at all.

    So far Steve-from-the-deep-north has thrown Algore, Doc. Patch and the CRU unit under the bus which means at the rate he’s going he’ll be running out of proponents by year’s end.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm

  64. As Greenpeace declares that a dozen countries are about to disappear from the map, Kevin Rudd addresses a “half-empty hall,” climate scientist Robert Mugabe pleads for cash to finance his next carbon-neutral genocide in Zimbabwe, Prince Charles announces the world will end in 7 years and Al Gore reads poetry to journalists, as all of this goes on – a new angle is needed to make the comedic disaster that is the Copenhagen communism revitalisation conference relevant again.

    Voila!

    Pelosi: Climate Change Is a Women’s Issue.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 9:21 pm

  65. C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  66. More from Ms. Botox gal.

    Pelosi touted the House’s passage of cap-and-trade, higher fuel efficiency standards, and the U.S. Capitol’s decreased carbon footprint as evidence that the U.S. is serious about fighting global warming.

    yea like earlier in the year she’d signed up for several private jets to fly senior Congressional officials around at the cost of $500 million smackers.

    Without doubt this is the stupidest conference I’ve ever witnessed and made even stupider with Christine Millenarian and Barney Hamilton attending.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm

  67. “dover_beach reminds me of the Michael Palin sketch on the most boring man in the world.

    As a boy his parents ran away and joined the circus.

    Ah, how true.

    Cyd

    December 18, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  68. The New York Post reports:

    Pelosi’s climate air farce.

    WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading a large delegation on at least two Air Force jets to Copenhagen for the climate summit — where participants harshly condemn the use of jet airplanes for the high amounts of CO2 they emit.

    “This may be the largest congressional delegation I have ever heard of,” said a source at the 89th Air Wing stationed at Andrews Air Force Base of the trip to the UN summit, which is increasingly being criticized as a farce.

    Using her authority as speaker, Pelosi reserved at least two jets based at Andrews AFB to fly her and her delegation to Denmark for the final days of the two-week conference.

    C.L.

    December 18, 2009 at 9:40 pm

  69. hahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha

    About the botox gal’s (and other Dems) trip.

    “Climate change is a religion for them, so there was no way they were going to miss this,” said one top GOP aide. “This is their Hajj.”

    They ought to stick a big rock in the middle of Copey and get all these guys and gals to run around it for a few laps.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm

  70. Oh God when did San fran Nan arrive?

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  71. Ol’ Nance arriving has put the icing on the cake. I’d say the whole thing has been a success

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 10:17 pm

  72. Homer caught lying again.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  73. Hey Sinc how’s it going? Are you all ready for Christmas?

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  74. Sinc:

    Perhaps it may be a good idea to open a “Homer’s dishonesty: thread whereby we can dump the lies in there and be able to use the entries as additional resource for the next dishonesty he tries to peddle.

    We could treat it as a subset of Wikihomer of course.

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm

  75. The Botox gal at it again. Yep, climate change regulations is really about jobs. Really!

    Copenhagen, December 17—“It’s all about the jobs,” declared U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her remarks at the Copenhagen climate change conference today. To hear Pelosi talk, saving the planet from climate doom is incidental to making sure Americans are employed making windmills, solar panels, electric cars, and weatherizing houses. Speaker Pelosi is heading up a 20-person congressional delegation here in Denmark, including such luminaries as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The monikers of the latter two solons—Waxman-Markey—are shorthand for the American Clean Energy and Security Act cap-and-trade bill that passed the House last June. The bill would require the U.S. to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

    Germany says it’s bullshit, as they’ve tried it.

    http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/17/the-green-jobs

    Jc

    December 18, 2009 at 11:26 pm

  76. I’ve ruptured my spleen laughing at this farce. I just don’t respect these people and I don’t think they should make laws for the rest of us

    tal

    December 18, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  77. DB and others… our erstwhile Doc. Patchauri is at it again.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/high-noon-for-pachauri.html

    Painting the town red.. green or whatever the color of Euros happenes to be… some Euro notes have pinkish hue.

    Doc Pach seems to have a hook on every currency note in the world and is reeling them in at a pretty fast clip.

    Jc

    December 19, 2009 at 12:51 am

  78. Climate change has so many ‘contexts’ and ‘narratives’ now for the purpose of securing cash – it’s hilarious. Reason rounds up some excerpts of what the world leaders said. My personal favourite is from Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Apparently the warmening is making the Jews even worse than usual:

    It is within the context of occupation that Palestinians are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Our vulnerability stems not just from the very real impact of climate change on our environment, but from the constraints we face under occupation.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 1:26 am

  79. Sierra Leone’s was the more “realistic” comment especially if you look at the place and note that it’s just a little bigger than a football field.

    No exaggeration there.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5475.htm

    Sierra Leone like most of the world is experiencing a change in its climate resulting in extreme weather events such as storms, floods and drought with adverse impacts on the socio-economic fabric of the country. – Ogunlade Davidson, Energy and Water Resources Minister of Sierra Leone

    That’s some serious climate change in that place. Turn your head and you’re in a storm.. move a coupla paces and it’s a drought… head back and you’re in a flood.

    Jc

    December 19, 2009 at 1:36 am

  80. Warmenist Barrier Reef scaremongering total bullshit.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 2:34 am

  81. More lies: warmenist Great Barrier Reef scaremongering total nonsense.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 2:36 am

  82. Climate scientist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has addressed the Copenhagen conference. He says the warmening is all America’s fault.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 2:41 am

  83. Can I drink Mararitas or not,this is important

    tal

    December 19, 2009 at 3:11 am

  84. Awww. The Guardian is deflated because Obama didn’t save the world:

    Barack Obama’s speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 4:19 am

  85. Does CL sleep at all on Friday night?

    Anyhow, it’s great to see he approves of an article about the Great Barrier Reef in which the academic who says others are “crying wolf” about coral bleaching from heat nonetheless believes in the real danger of ocean acidification:

    “He accepted that ocean acidification associated with climate change was a genuine danger because it could impede the process of coral calcification, destroying the reef’s building block. Scientists responsible for “crying wolf” over lesser threats had done the research community a disservice, he said.”

    It’s not just corals in danger, of course. It’a a giant crapshoot that you do-nothing, it’s-all-a-religion, who-cares-about-future-generations gamblers want the rest of us to take.

    steve from brisbane

    December 19, 2009 at 8:23 am

  86. So, Steve, setting aside the acidification, we take it from your comment that you agree with the criticism of the other scientists crying wolf over coral bleaching?

    Abu Chowdah

    December 19, 2009 at 9:19 am

  87. No, Dr P doesn’t impress me much at all. But the tone and conclusion of that letter is still ridiculous. I can see Monckton’s eyes bugging out in indignation as he wrote it with a glass of claret in hand.

    When you start insulting a person’s physical characteristics you are flagging your own desperation.

    Abu Chowdah

    December 19, 2009 at 9:49 am

  88. Try that again [quoting from steve of brisbane]:

    “No, Dr P doesn’t impress me much at all. But the tone and conclusion of that letter is still ridiculous. I can see Monckton’s eyes bugging out in indignation as he wrote it with a glass of claret in hand.”

    When you start insulting a person’s physical characteristics you are flagging your own desperation.

    Abu Chowdah

    December 19, 2009 at 9:50 am

  89. A pictorial summary of climate scientists at the hilariously failed Copenhagen disaster.

    And Andrew Bolt (we await Steve’s denuciation of his physique) has more on the warmenists’ now repudiated lies about the Great Barrier Reef.

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  90. “Actually Snoopy there is a variation in temperatures between where the various stations were located in Darwin as there were in NZ indeed it happens all over the globe….It is a question asked by someone who believes that temperature doesn’t vary much when in fact it does.”

    Homer, what are you talking about?

    “dover_beach reminds me of the Michael Palin sketch on the most boring man in the world.

    As a boy his parents ran away and joined the circus.”

    Rog has thrown in the towel.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  91. Come on, how often do we get the match of pompous, crazy talk and crazy looking, Marty Feldman-ish eyes?

    And I see you and Bolt are both avoiding the ocean acidification comments in the article you pointed us to.

    steve from brisbane

    December 19, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  92. Steve from B, you seem to be making hay with his ‘admission’ that ocean acidification “could” be a problem while ignoring:

    scientists who predicted corals would be mostly extinct by mid-century had a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in “bloody brilliant shape”

    He said the reef had defied predictions that it would be overwhelmed by crown of thorns starfish, smothered in sediment from river runoff or poisoned by sediment and chemicals washed on to corals from the mainland.

    They are saying bleaching is the end of the world, but when you look into it, that is a highly dubious proposition.

    More than 95 per cent of the corals were affected, of which about a third died. The corals became stressed after the water temperature topped 28.5C and began to die when it hit 30C and stayed at that level for a week or more, with limited wind or cloud cover to ease the heating.

    Scientists have found the tolerance level of corals varies. Reefs around Magnetic Island, off Townsville, can withstand water temperatures in the low 30s, while those off Yemen, at the foot of the Arabian peninsula, live in temperatures that can reach 34C.

    As The Weekend Australian reports today, some of the corals on the Keppel outcrops are more thickly covered in coral than before bleaching in 2006, raising hope the living heart of the reef can acclimatise to spikes in water temperature through a remarkable process of algal shuffling.

    I could go on but wouldn’t want to “bore” anyone.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  93. It speaks: the real market (not the fake carbon “market”) #2:

    New-car buyers are shunning environmental responsibility and belt-tightening and splashing out on cars that make a statement, according to new research…

    Environmental responsibility had dropped off the radar with buyers, while growing confidence about the economy had also influenced purchase decisions.

    “We restrained ourselves last year and we pretended we wanted to buy a Toyota Prius or Honda Jazz,” Mr Chalk said. “We were also scared by the global financial crisis. But there’s a feeling now that we’ve dodged a bullet and are headed back to good times.

    “People are saying, ‘Why not buy a car that I enjoy?”‘

    C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  94. C.L.

    December 19, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  95. “Come on, how often do we get the match of pompous, crazy talk and crazy looking, Marty Feldman-ish eyes?”

    Desperate. Can’t argue rationally, so you insult the appearance of the person you disagree with. Good thing he’s not from some ethnic minority, your abuse could get really offensive.

    Abu Chowdah

    December 19, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  96. Steve, I’m not ignoring the acidification issue. Looks like a major concern to me.

    But I’d like to set them aside for a few short moments while we clarify something. So, Steve, as I asked before: “setting aside the acidification, we take it from your earlier comment that you AGREE with the criticism of the other scientists crying wolf over CORAL BLEACHING?”

    Or would you rather choke and grasp for the acidification issue than concede anything?

    Abu Chowdah

    December 19, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  97. Sinkers caught lying AGAIN. There was MORE than one station that moved Physically. Apparently moving a station over 125 meters above sea level is ‘bullshit’

    Maybe to sinkers pretending to be Forrest but not to anyone literate in statistics.

    Moreover Sinkers never mentions the website involved looked to make up data to make an issue of ‘made up ‘ data.

    Sinkers just loves made up data.

    He also wants people to believe he just couldn’t find out why the BOM had adjusted data in Darwin.

    He is pleading either he is too stupid to find out ( the Forrest excuse) or he doesn’t want to find out?
    ( the lazy excuse). On history the last one wins out all the time.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  98. Homer
    I suggest that you be given three cards, each representing one of your standard diatribes. You can then post “Number 2!” and all will know what you mean.
    Save a lot of electrons that way.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  99. Abu, I remain somewhat open minded on the bleaching issue. It seems there is little doubt that recovery from past bleaching has been much better than first feared. However, I am not sure whether that would continue to be the case if AGW led to a series of years in which bleaching occurred each year.

    In any event, I have never been one to run around drumming up current bleaching as proof the reef is about to die. I have known for some years that there were some reef researchers critical about some of their fellow scientists “over-selling” fears of coral bleaching.

    I’ve always worried about acidification more, as it may well be a more “permanent” problem for the reef, as well as affecting the whole ocean ecology much more widely.

    steve from brisbane

    December 19, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  100. Sinkers posted an article asserting that the NZ temperature data was being ‘artificially’ raised.

    He didn’t mention that the NZ BOM had a perfectly good explanation for adjusting temperature.
    Apparently Sinkers believes shifting a station 125 metres above where it had been is of no consequence.

    It is of consequence to people who measure temperatures. ( see Thomas C. Peterson and Timothy W. Owen 2005 Urban Heat Island Assessment: Metadata Are Important. Journal of Climate, 18, 2637–2646 for why it is.) This is another paper which Sinkers apparently has missed!

    He also didn’t mention that the person making the allegation had himself ‘massaged’ the data.

    As I said Sinkers is either pleading he is stupid or lazy.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 19, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  101. “He also wants people to believe he just couldn’t find out why the BOM had adjusted data in Darwin.”

    Homer, we are not concerned with why the BoM might have adjusted the raw data for temp stations in Darwin (adjustments which might be entirely reasonable) but with difference between the GHCN raw data and the GHCN adjusted data for Darwin produced by the NOAA/NCDC which DOES NOT make adjustments for location moves, etc. The effects of GHCN adjustments change the sign of the slope from -0.7 C to +1.2 C from 1880 to the present and worse, makes the trend post-1941 +6 C/ century.

    A response that can be summarised as “Sinkers is lying” (Number 1?) just won’t do.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  102. Snoopy I was very specific ,as I always am, about what people are lying about!

    I am amused by people lying about lying however

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  103. This is largely because renewable technologies “are more local and they’re more labor-intensive.”

    just what we wanted more labor for the same output

    drscroogemcduck

    December 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  104. “Snoopy I was very specific ,as I always am, about what people are lying about!”

    You have accused people of lying many a time, Homer, but whenever you do you fail to actually quote what people have in fact said, or even bothered to provide a link.

    “I am amused by people lying about lying however”

    Indeed, Homer. We all find you amusing here; at least those of us that no longer take you seriously.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  105. Snoopy I do not make that statement very often and almost always after someone else does.

    It is always very easy to show what has happened as it was here.

    Indeed I recall you accusing me of lying about Germany only to find out you were in favour of the Ritschl’s thesis which you then destroyed by attempting to say the changed their budget information.
    Unfortunately the very data Ritschl relied on.
    Of course you could not find anyone to back up your ‘interpretation’ from academia.
    Funny about that.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 19, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  106. Exactly Duck…. reverse the process of modernization through capital intensity and also reverse labor productivity. That would sure raise living standards. NOT! Freaking innumerate, economic illiterates.

    Jc

    December 19, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  107. Homer:

    As a Cristian you had better pray you find a forgiving god as you try to skulk through those pearly gates otherwise your dishonesty will get you dumped in the 12th circle of hell, one made up just for you.

    Jc

    December 19, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  108. oops Christian.

    Jc

    December 19, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  109. OK, this seems like a very important response to the whole issue of whether the disputed Darwin adjustments make any difference at all:

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    In summary, running through the GHNC dataset to look at the distribution of trends gives this result (and go to the link to look at the pretty graph):

    “Not surprisingly, the distribution of adjustment trends is a quasi-normal distribution with peak pretty much around 0 (0 is the median adjustment and 0.017 C/decade is the average adjustment – the planet warming trend in the last century has been of about 0.2 C/decade). In other words, most adjustment hardly modify the reading, and the warming and cooling adjustments end up compensating each other1. I am sure this is no big surprise. The point of this analysis is not to check the good faith of people handling the data: that is not under scrutiny (and not because I trust the scientists but because I trust the scientific method).
    The point is actually to show the denialists that going probe after probe cherry picking those with a “weird” adjustment is a waste of time. Please stop the non-sense.”

    There are many comments following the post, but as far as I can see, none bring up a fatal flaw in this analysis.

    I would especially like DB and Sinclair to read it, and to explain to me why it isn’t convincing proof that, regardless of what might at first denialist glance look suspicious at one particular location, the global picture shows strong evidence of no fraud or mistake leading to a significant upwards adjustment of trends.

    steve from brisbane

    December 19, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  110. “It is always very easy to show what has happened as it was here.”

    If it is very easy to show why the failure to either directly quote or link?

    “Indeed I recall you accusing me of lying about Germany only to find out you were in favour of the Ritschl’s thesis which you then destroyed by attempting to say the changed their budget information. Unfortunately the very data Ritschl relied on.”

    I never said that they changed their budget information, I said that there was a difference between their published and shadow budgets. You simply put words in people’s mouths in the hope that a lazy or itinerant reader will believe you.

    You were mistaken and lied about a great many things in regard to Germany; however I don’t want to pollute another thread with your mistakes, evasions, dissembling, misrepresentations, and lies. Each time I accused you of either I quoted both what you said and what they (Tooze, Ritschl, etc.) said or other relevant information and left it to the reader to judge. This was not to your advantage and it seems the scars cut deeply.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  111. I’ve come across this before, Steve from B. Bishop Hill linked to it, as well as linking to this interesting riposte.

    http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/

    When you look at the adjustments made over time, it gives you a rather interesting picture.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  112. Sinkers posted an article asserting that the NZ temperature data was being ‘artificially’ raised.

    He didn’t mention that the NZ BOM had a perfectly good explanation for adjusting temperature.

    Homer lying again. Here is a cut n paste from a google cache.

    Meanwhile some tough questions are being asked about the New Zealand temperature series.

    Full report here.
    Update: The New Zealand authorities explain.

    Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

    NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

    Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

    NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

    NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 19, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  113. Oops, sorry I missed that it had been previously posted. Still trying to read up on that v shaped graph.

    steve from brisbane

    December 19, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  114. “Homer lying again. Here is a cut n paste from a google cache.”

    Yes, it was my impression that you referred to the counter-claims of the NIWA as well, Sinc. I’m not surprised Homer has been caught lying again.

    dover_beach

    December 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: