Monday, June 11, 2012

Huge fraud in reporting the U.S. temperature record

Fanatics at work

Proponents of global warming alarmism place heavy reliance on the temperature record of the United States, probably the world’s best data set. They say that the record shows significant warming in the 20th century. Most global warming realists have accepted this claim, but have questioned whether this particular temperature trend–the Earth has been getting either warmer or cooler, sometimes on a far greater scale, for millions of years–has much to do with human activity.

What is less well known is that the alarmists do not rely on raw temperature data collected by American weather stations. Rather, the alarmists adjust the data before they publish it. This chart from NASA GISS, which you likely have seen before, purports to show the temperature anomaly as measured on land in the U.S. from 1880 to approximately the present:

But that graph, like virtually every discussion of American temperature trends that you have seen, uses “adjusted” temperature data, not what was actually reported from weather stations. This chart reflects raw data from the U. S. Historical Climatology Network, the same data that were the basis–pre-”adjustment”–for the chart above:

Michael Hammer, who created this chart from the raw data, writes:
Clearly the shape of this graph bears no similarity at all to the graph shown in Figure 4 [the first graph above]. The graph does not even remotely correlate to the shape of the CO2 versus time graph. The warming was greatest in the 1930’s before CO2 started to rise rapidly. The rate of rise in 1920, the early 1930’s and the early 1950’s is significantly greater than anything in the last 30 years. Despite the rapid rise in CO2 since 1960, the 1970’s to early 1980’s was the time of the global cooling scare and looking at the graph in Figure 5 one can see why (almost 2F cooling over 50 years).

It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory.

So, what exactly are the adjustments that are made to the raw data by NOAA before they are published? Historically, five adjustments have been made; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated:
It is obvious that the only adjustment which reduces the reported warming is UHI which is a linear correction of 0.1F or about 0.06C per century, Figure 2. Note also that the latest indications are that even this minimal UHI adjustment has now been removed in the latest round of revisions to the historical record. To put this in perspective, in my previous article on this site I presented bureau of meteorology data which shows that the UHI impact for Melbourne Australia was 1.5C over the last 40 years equivalent to 3.75C per century and highly non linear.

Compare the treatment of UHI with the adjustments made for measuring stations that have moved out of the city centre, typically to the airport. These show lower temperatures at their new location and the later readings have been adjusted upwards so as to match the earlier readings. The airport readings are lower because the station has moved away from the city UHI. Raising the airport readings, while not adding downwards compensation for UHI, results in an overstatement of the amount of warming. This would seem to be clear evidence of bias. It would be more accurate to lower the earlier city readings to match the airport readings rather than vice versa.

This is really a scandal. Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!

Anthony Watts reports the discovery of more corruption of the historical record by global warming alarmists. The National Climate Data Center has been altering historical records to make past temperatures cooler than were reported at the time. This is being done so as to create an artificial warming trend over the 20th century:
Jeff Masters and [Christopher C. Burt] recently received an interesting email from Ken Towe who has been researching the NCDC historical temperature database and came across what appeared to be some startling inconsistencies. Namely that the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past. Here is why.

Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F. [Ed.: This is the paper version that was published at the time.]

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published.

So the actual temperatures reported in the 1930s are being reduced, to make it appear as though global warming has been going on since then. A reduction of more than three degrees Fahrenheit is, of course, huge.

These disclosures highlight a key fact with respect to global temperature data: the data sets are utterly lacking in integrity. Global warming alarmists confidently announce that worldwide temperatures have risen by, say .1 degree over a decade. It would be extraordinarily difficult to take measurements at many locations around the globe that would actually demonstrate that proposition. But the real situation is much worse: no one tells you what temperatures were actually measured at the world’s weather stations. Rather, they report claims of global warming based on “adjusted” temperature data–adjusted by alarmists, with the systematic purpose of manufacturing a rising temperature trend. If you subtract the “adjustments,” it may well be that there has been no net warming over the last 100 years at all.

I’ve said it before; here it is one more time: global warming hysteria is not science. It is an unholy combination of religion and politics.


Pesky recent trend

A Swedish blogger who loves looking at numbers every now and again looks at the rubbish put out by the U.S. climate establishment and shows that even after all their "adjustments" there are still some embarrassing figures there. Her latest finding FROM THE OFFICIAL FIGURES is that the U.S. temperature since the year 2000 has been COOLING. Some excerpts:

As a complement to my previous post May U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 7.8 F COOLER in 100 years, I thought it also would be interesting to look at the recent 5 months (year to date, January-May) US temperature from a “historic” perspective since we now have a whole year of official data. To see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 112 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 42 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 5 month, a year by year consecutive trend 112 years long to be a “quite good” indicator.

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends:

The trend for 1970 to 2012 is 0.62 F / Decade

The trend for 1980 to 2012 is 0.44 F / Decade

The trend for 1990 to 2012 is 0.12 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2012 is - 0.26 F / Decade

And as I said in the beginning – always remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.).

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2012 to 2000-2012??

So the “warming trend” 2000-2012 is exactly - 0.26 F degrees COOLER a decade. That is a - 2.6 F COOLER in 100 years.

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The recent 5 months trend 1970-2012 is exactly 0.62 F degrees a decade.

The recent 5 months trend 1980-2012 is exactly 0.44 F degrees a decade.

The recent 5 months trend 1990-2012 is exactly 0.12 F degrees a decade.

The recent 5 months trend 2000-2012 is exactly - 0.26 F degrees a decade.

So, far from accelerating, the “warming” trend is really DECELERATING and has now in fact moved over into cooling

More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

The insanity and danger of people-haters on show

Princeton University professor Peter Singer, dubbed the "godfather" of animal rights, says Christianity is a "problem" for the animal rights movement.

Singer, author of the book "Animal Liberation" and a professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, criticized American Christianity for its fundamentalist strain that takes the Bible too "literally" and promotes "speciesism." He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."

Baby Killing OK

In an address to the national Animal Rights 2002 conference in McLean, Va., on Saturday, Singer also reiterated his controversial position that a "severely disabled" infant may be killed up to 28 days after its birth if the parents deem the baby's life is not worth living.

"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people attending a workshop titled "When Is Killing OK? (Attacking animals? Unwanted dogs & cats? Unwanted or deformed fetuses?)"

He singled out the "more conservative mainstream fundamentalist views" that "want to make a huge gulf between humans and animals" as being the most harmful to the concept of "animal liberation."

Singer rejected what he termed "the standard view that most people hold," that "just being human makes life special." He told one questioner from the audience, "I hope that you don't think that just being a biological member of the species homo sapiens means that you do have a soul and being a member of some other species means they don't. I think that would trouble me.

"I am an atheist. I know that is an ugly word in America," he added.

Singer pointed out that the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches not only that humans have souls and animals don't, but that humans are made in the image of God and that God gave mankind dominion over the animals. "All three taken together do have a very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals," he said.

He explained that his mission is to challenge "this superiority of human beings," and he conceded that his ideas go very much against the grain in a country that mostly still believes in human superiority.

Infant's Right to Life?

Singer reiterated one of his most controversial positions regarding the right to kill a newborn infant within 28 days of birth if the infant is deemed "severely disabled."

"If you have a being that is not sentient, that is not even aware, then the killing of that being is not something that is wrong in and of itself," he stated.

"I think that a chimpanzee certainly has greater self-awareness than a newborn baby," he told

He explained that "there are some circumstances, for example, where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it's better that that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong ... not like killing the chimpanzee would be. Maybe it's not wrong at all."

He said his original view, published in his book "Practical Ethics," that the parents should have 28 days to determine whether the infant should live has been modified somewhat since the book's release.

"So in that book, we suggested that 28 days is not a bad period of time to use because on the one hand, it gives you time to examine the infant to [see] what the nature of the disability is; gives time for the couple to recover from the shock of the birth to get well advised and informed from all sorts of groups, medical opinion and disability and to reach a decision.

"And also I think that it is clearly before the point at which the infant has those sorts of forward-looking preferences, that kind of self-awareness, that I talked about. But I now think, after a lot more discussion, that you can't really propose any particular cut-off date."

He now advocates that the life or death decision regarding the infant should be made "as soon as possible after birth" because the 28 day cut-off, based on an ancient Greek practice, is "too arbitrary."

He called his views on killing "non-speciest" and "logical" because they don't "depend on simply being a member of the species homo sapiens."

Protecting Insects

Singer was asked several questions about whether his concept of animal rights included the protection of insects, rodents or shellfish. "I think insects are, you are right, the toughest conflicts we generally face. I wouldn't kill a spider if I can avoid killing a spider, and I don't think I need to," he said.

What if termites were threatening his home? "With termites that are actually eating out the foundation of my home, and this happens, this is a more serious problem, and I think at that point, I would feel that I need to dwell somewhere, and if I can't drive them away in some way, I guess I would end up killing them," he conceded.

When asked by why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer said that humans have to be held to a different standard.

"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.

One woman at the workshop, who identified herself only as Angie, asked Singer if killing humans is acceptable to defend animals. "My name is Angie, and I am not going to kill anybody, but I have a question about self preservation, because I am thinking about doing a goose intervention where people are going to be coming to my neighborhood to kill geese. I am wondering, would it be my right to kill somebody that is harming, that is killing, 11,000 geese in New Jersey?"

Singer replied, "For starters, I think it would be a very bad thing to do to the movement." He later explained that he does not support violence to further the cause of animal rights, but he does support civil disobedience, such as "entering property, trespassing in order to obtain evidence."

Singer defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."

'Hard for Someone Not to Agree'

The animal rights activists attending Saturday's conference had nothing but praise for Singer and his influence on the movement.

Singer, who was introduced as the "godfather" of animal rights, received three standing ovations during his keynote address Saturday night, attended by about 400 people. Conference participant Jennie Sunner called Singer "fundamental to the movement's inception and its movement forward."

"I am so relieved he exists ... he's so well-reasoned and well-thought-out, that it is hard for someone not to agree," she added.

"I think he's got a really important message and a really inspiring message," stated David Berg of Utah Animal Rights Coalition.

Jason Tracy of Ooh-Mah-Nee Farm Sanctuary called Singer "very, very important to our movement." He has "done a lot of great work," he said.

Those participating in the conference had a wide variety of animal issues on their agenda, from anti-fur campaigns to promoting veganism to lobbying against "factory farming."

T-shirts and bumper stickers seen at the conference included the following slogans: "Stop Hunting"; "Milk is Murder"; "Animal Liberation: Wire Cutters are a terrible thing to Waste" (with an image of a cut farm fence cut); "Beef, it's what is rotting in your colon"; and a T-shirt featuring a cow with the slogan "I died for your sins."

Barry Clausen, a critic of the Animal "rights" movement and author of the book "Burning Rage," has studied the animal rights movement for 12 years and believes that it is having an impact.

'3,000 Acts of Terrorism'

Clausen, whose book details the illegal activities of some members of the animal rights and environmental movements, believes the biggest threat the animal rights advocates pose is their ability to limit animal medical research.

"If we can't have animal research, we can't have solutions to medical problems. You just can't stop everything to save a chimpanzee," he told

Clausen cautions that some animal rights activists have been involved in acts of what he calls domestic terrorism. "Over the past 12 years, we have had over 3,000 acts of terrorism by environmental and animal rights extremists," he said.

Clausen does not pull any punches when it comes to his opinion of the animal rights activists. "I have not come across one of these people who I did not consider to be mentally ill," Clausen said.

But conference participant Sunner defended the animal activists.

"Being normal by nature means you will never do anything extraordinary, so everything revolutionary that is good has been preceded by that kind of ridicule and trivialization," she said.


'Prime suspect' in bee colony deaths is found - and it's not global warming after all

Parasitic mites have 'turbo-charged' the spread of a deadly virus that is killing honey bee colonies around the world. Bee populations have been falling rapidly in many countries, fuelled by a phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder.

Many suspects have been named for bee colony collapse, including popular pesticides.

Now University of Sheffield scientists studied the impact of a parasitic mite arriving in a fresh territory - Hawaii - and concluded that it is a prime suspect, since it spreads viruses while feeding on hemolymph, or bee's ‘blood’.

To clarify the link between mites and viruses, a team led by Stephen Martin of Britain's University of Sheffield studied the impact of Varroa in Hawaii, which the mites have only recently invaded.

They found the arrival of Varroa increased the prevalence of a single type of virus, deformed wing virus (DWV), in honey bees from around 10% to 100%. At the same time the amount of DWV virus in the bees' bodies rocketed by a millionfold and there was a huge reduction in virus diversity, with a single strain of DWV crowding out others.

‘It is that strain that is now dominant around the world and seems to be killing bees,’ Martin said in a telephone interview. ‘My money would be on this virus as being key.’

Other factors - including fungi, pesticides and decreased plant diversity - are thought to play a role in colony collapse, but Ian Jones of the University of Reading said the latest findings pointed to the virus and mite combination as being the main culprit.

‘This data provides clear evidence that, of all the suggested mechanisms of honey bee loss, virus infection brought in by mite infestation is a major player in the decline,’ he said.

Jones, who was not involved the research, said the findings reinforced the need for beekeepers to control Varroa infestation in colonies.

The threat to bee populations extends across much of Europe and the United States to Asia, South America and the Middle East, experts say. Bees are important pollinators of flowering plants, including many fruit and vegetable crops.


Ehrlich – Repeating The Same Crap Since Nixon Was President

Is Ehrlich the most misnamed scientist of all time? "Ehrlich" is German for "honest" or "honorable"

From The Australian Women’s Weekly Wednesday 28 July 1971:

Extinction warning: Dr. Paul Ehrlich says man is destroying the world. Too many people, and too much pollution. Scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich warns: Do something about it, because man is on THE ROAD TO EXTINCTION.

SOMEONE once asked Dr. Paul Ehrlich if he wasn’t a bit of an alarmist. “I certainly am,” he replied. “After all, I’m alarmed.”

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Report Finds Heavy Foreign Mineral Dependance Is A National Security Threat

And Obama's EPA is making it worse

Paul Bedard at The Washington Examiner notes the release of an important study by the American Resources Policy Network that examines our lack of a national resource strategy and its implications for the defense and high tech industry. Bedard notes that far from addressing the problem, the Obama administration is exacerbating the problem by stifling new development or acting to resume cold war-era stockpiles as experts recommend.

A couple highlights from the report:

In all, the U.S. is dependent for at least 50% of its supply for 43 metals and minerals. To put it another way, if “foreign oil” appeared on the USGS dependency chart, it would appear in 44th place.

For critical metals and minerals related to defense the main supplier is China, accounting for over 40% of the minerals that we are 100% (or nearly 100%) reliant on imports for. Up and down the report China is the elephant in the room in terms of strategic minerals. There is one notable exception...

...Copper presents a notable exception to the “foreign dependency = risk for supply disruption” axiom. The United States is the world’s third largest Copper producer, yet a 2010 MIT study by Elisa Alonso notes that the risk of Copper disruption is significantly greater than for other major metals, and is at or near an historical high. The Office of the Secretary of Defense lists Copper as a metal that has, “[Already] caused some kind of weapon production delay for the DoD.” Copper is also the primary metal for other strategic and critical metals highlighted in this report. Significant amounts of Molybdenum, Rhenium (nearly 75% of world’s production), Tellurium and Selenium (95% of world’s production) come from Copper mining and refining. Copper shortages will trigger companion shortages in these metals as well. We highlight this to further demonstrate the shortsightedness of targeting metals based entirely on stand-alone percentages.

While things may sound dire - and they certainly could be - there's some good news... We have it in our power to solve these critical foreign dependencies if our government would make it a priority.

U.S. policy-makers routinely debate how best to encourage sustained economic growth, the next generation of technological progress, and the advanced weapons systems on which our national security depends. Each of these essential public policy goals presupposes reliable access to critical resources -- the metals and minerals assessed in this report – that constitute the raw material of modern development.

For our omnibus Risk Pyramid of 46 metals and minerals, known U.S. resources exist for 40. In other words, for 87% of the metals and minerals on our Risk Pyramid, domestic resources exist – the development of which could lessen our import dependency.

Of course with Obama's EPA leading the way, as we noted last month in the case of the Pebble Mine project in Alaska, the chances of developing domestic resources are nil...



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


1 comment:

slktac said...

Peter Singer makes the classic argument that humans have a higher moral duty than animals because humans CAN make that decision. This is interesting coming from an animal rights activist. Humans are still superior to animals if we can make morel choices. However, we really have no way of knowing if animals have the capacity to make moral choices. We believe they do not because it suits our purpose. For all we know, lions band together and kill people for sport. Singer has NO justification for his comment and he knows it. Animals may have the same "moral" abilities as humans. In fact, with his argument, they probably do. They just can't speak any languages that humans can (except sign language--I'm waiting for a chimp to sign "I hate you" and then kill the trainer.....) so we can assign them any values and behaviors we want. That's the cowardly thing about animal right's activists--they know the thing they protect can't contradict them. The human's right the rules. Until that chimp tells them otherwise......