The Telegraph

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

This should prove interesting.

So would this change our collective view on global warming? If it's proved true to be exaggerated.

Quote from: S/ash on April 26, 2015, 02:06:44 PM

Fucking liberals, slanting scientific numbers for their political stance. I always knew something was fishy about all the global warming tout.

You can't trust a liberal as far as you can throw 'em. I'd like to see what they have to say about this.

>Midgetposting

>Implying what I say isn't true

So would this change our collective view on global warming? If it's proved true to be exaggerated.

Loosely speaking, rather than being fucked in 100 years, we'll now only be fucked in 200 years.
We should still try and not end up fucked though.

Huh. Should ask one my Professors what's his take on it, as he's being doing research on this sorta thing in relation to the oceans and been shouting doomsday in my lectures...

Despite this (and the negative repercussions, this is a climate-change denier's wet dream...), I doubt it has been exaggerated too much (as the discrepancies would have been noticed earlier) and has only been to essentially scaremonger people into perhaps thinking about the environment rather than just say "fuck it all" and burn tyres.

I can see a possible explanation for it, but it is completely indefensible if it turns out to be true, and will only harm people's perceptions of scientists researching into climate change. GG, idiots.

I stand behind the idea of finding and implementing alternative energy sources regardless.

It's obvious that Global Warming is happening! When the last two years in my area have been cooler than usual all year long

-Dat sarcasm

It's obvious that climate change isn't happening! When the last two years in my area have been hotter than usual all year long and the state I live in is having the worst recorded drought ever!

And also.

>implying that your area is representative of the entire world

I wish fgts would keep their politics out of my science.

If the data is manipulated I think it's a small one. Sure it might be faked to get people to wake up about this but at the same time the fake numbers probably aren't that far from what it really is. Either way it still doesn't change that it is easy to see and figure out that human involvement does cause climate change. You don't have to fake numbers to see that.

doesn't matter.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 27, 2015, 10:14:15 PM

Quote from: Forgewolf on April 27, 2015, 09:42:44 PM

It's obvious that Global Warming is happening! When the last two years in my area have been cooler than usual all year long

-Dat sarcasm

It's obvious that climate change isn't happening! When the last two years in my area have been hotter than usual all year long and the state I live in is having the worst recorded drought ever!

And also.

>implying that your area is representative of the entire world

You'd think if the whole Globe was heating up.. there wouldn't be several areas that are going in the opposite direction, just doesn't make sense.. And California could fix their drought issue if they would take water from the big ass Ocean that is right next to them.

The entirety of Europe also recorded their hottest November last year. And the majority of the world is getting hotter overall. I've looked at weather statistics of most major cities all over the world and the statistics from 1990-2010 are noticeably warmer than statistics from 1970-1990.

And desalination is a very costly and inefficient method to get water. Especially so since California's water requirements are enormous. Trying to get enough water to cover the state's water needs would bankrupt the entire country.

(and I read your edited in part of the post, and yeah, we should be doing that)

I'm not out right denying Global Warming.. but I don't out right accept it either.

What reason is there not to accept it?

There is absolutely NO proof that humans have a significant impact on this planet's climate.

I would question you why you think that but I just found out that I'm a squirt who is pooping my pants because I'm suffering from a botched lobotomy which makes me go incoherent at times. Sometimes I forget I'm holding a mirror in my hands and looking at myself when I'm talking to people.