Posts Tagged ‘Anthony Watts’

Anthony Watts, what have you done?

6 december, 2011

Sadly, and reluctantly I decided to publish this post. But Anthony Watts has crossed a line that should not be crossed with this post.

Who gets the most access to network data (like emails at CRU)?

First about Anthony Watts: He has my unreserved admiration for his long and unique work on surface stations in USA, revelling their poor locations, quality etc. This is exceptionally good work from a private citizen when the government and “scientific” organisations failed to do their work.

All this work can be found here

And then his dedicated work on his blog ( to expose the flawed “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. All this work has made his blog, rightfully so, one of the must influential ones. This is extraordinary work from a private citizen.  I stand in salute for that.

But, as I said, he has crossed a line that should not be crossed with the above post.

As a former journalist and working in the government, I am deeply troubled. I posted a comment to his post (see at the end of this post), but I like to explain in more detail why I am so troubled by his post.

What shines through is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And dangerous.

So let’s first recapitulate which persons/groups are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big Media), Big Companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of them have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “charming lot” we are up against.

There are two parts to this.


The first part is the extensive speculations, going through categories of persons that could have done it, and tips on who is behind the leak etc.

As I said in my comment to his post:

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak?”

This is not your job, Anthony. The governments, with ALL their disposable resources; from police via tax authorities to different intelligence agencies and special ops; HAVE ALL the resources in the world to find this person/persons. If they so chose.

As a journalist, the first rule is to protect your sources. And especially you don’t try and go and expose them  through lengthy examinations and discussion about who they can be.

To give you an analogue with one of the most famous of them all “Deep throat”. This exposed the Nixon administration, including the Watergate scandal.

Imagine if Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had written lengthy articles about who the source could be, which persons actually had access to that kind of information, which department etc he or she could come from.

How many new sources do you think they would get?  – None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. They would be the pariah of investigative journalism. And for a very good reason too.

Her you have a very reliable source with data that can be controlled and verified. And you want to find out who it is. Thereby risking that person/persons untold “unpleasantness”. Just by speculating.

And Anthony, why do you think FOIA after two years of silence published the WHOLE email file this time, even if you could only access 5000 of them? The rest covered by high encryption and a very long pass phrase?

Because this is his or her insurance against the resources the state can put against them.

Remember that FOIA was very naïve to in the beginning. He/she gave it first to the mainstream media (including laughingly enough BBC). Which of course refused to do anything.

It was only after that it was “leaked”. But however FOIA is, he/she have quickly learned the hard political lessons.

Very telling is the absent from the leaked emails of ANY regarding contacts between the so called “scientists” and politicians or person high up in various administrations/agencies etc.

Why, because I am quite sure that they are there among the rest of the 250 000 emails behind that encryption. So if the state or politicians gets “to close” FOIA will release the pass phrase which will reveal everything in the hidden emails.

That alone should give you pass for thought. And stop this helping to find the person/persons behind the leak.


So let’s again recapitulate which “charming lot” are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big media), Big companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of the have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “prime example of truthful and nice people” we are up against.

And what does Anthony do?

He writes an email to one of the chief architects behind the Global Warming Hysteria Phil Jones (CRU) and Journal of Geophysical Research; and kindly informs them that he has discovered some security holes.

And admonishes that they “should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review.”

Let me se if I get this right:

Anthony  writes to Phil Jones, a guy who literally hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leaks in the future?


Leaks like Climate gate 1 and 2, which showed in black and white these “scientist”, politicians and “journalists” to be lying, breaking the law, “adjusting” and manipulating data to fit their agenda, stopping ANY dissent and  suppressing any person or paper that dared to question them.

Out of respect for Anthony I will not make some very tempting analogies here.

You have accomplished what the Global Warming Hysterics in their wettest dream didn’t dare to dream.

How sad. And what a shame.

I can only conclude by saying that Anthony, you have crossed a line, and even if you do not understand it yourself, you have become Colonel Nicholson (se below).

Here is my comment to his post published 4.24 am today:


Anthony, have you lost it?

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak? As some have pointed out in their comments.

And Charles.U.Farleys comments are spot on

“In fact if the roles were reversed i think theyd have used any foothold, any loophole to ensure they brought you down rather than simply seek the truth. Personally i dont think its wise to assist them in any way shape or form as its simply helping them to continue unabated.

After all, this is a global war theyre involved in, a war based on lies and disinformation, of treachery and vilification of anyone not supporting “the cause”, and comfort shouldnt be given to enemies of freedom, especuially ones who stoop so low as these.”

Sadly, you very much remind me of commander, Colonel Nicholson played by Alec Guinness in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).

The prisoners (British soldiers) are working as little as possible and sabotaging whatever they can at the construction of a bridge.

When Nicholson and his officers are released, he conducts an inspection of the bridge and is shocked by what he finds. Against the protests of some of his officers, he orders Captain Reeves and Major Hughes to design and build a proper bridge, despite its military value to the Japanese, for the sake of his men’s morale. The Japanese engineers had chosen a poor site, so the original construction is abandoned and a new bridge is begun 400 yards downstream.

Nicholson drives his men, even volunteering to have them work harder to complete the bridge on time

The commandos who where parachute in, plant explosives to destroy the bridge and a train carrying Japanese soldiers and important dignitaries is scheduled to be the first to use the bridge the following morning

Making a final inspection, Nicholson spots the wire and brings it to Japanese commander attention. As the train is heard approaching, the two hurry down to the riverbank to investigate.  Joyce, hiding with the detonator, breaks cover and stabs Saito to death; Nicholson yells for help, while attempting to stop Joyce from reaching the detonator. Joyce is killed by Japanese fire. Shears swims across the river, but is shot just before he reaches Nicholson.

Recognising the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, ”What have I done?”

I think it sums it up quiet well.




Well my post made some stir. As it should because it concerns some important principles.

First, let me say that I find it depressing that so few people really understands the need to protect the sources. And doesn’t understand that mindless speculations are very dangerous in this regard

Second, what shines through, still, in the debate is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And very dangerous.

This is NOT some tea party where you discus things friendly over biscuits and cake. And have a wee argument.

This is about Power and Real Politics. And the persons behind the Global Warming Hysteria have been playing it for a long time. And very successfully so.

Until people understand this, that it always has been a political agenda, the Global Warming Hysterics will have the upper hand. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

Here are some who publicly have commented and linked to my post about Anthony Watts:



Controversial action by Anthony Watts

Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.

Why on earth would be do that when the Climategate releases have been so helpful to skeptics? It appears to be out of some misguided sense of honour but I suspect that the real motive is that he is tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.

A Swedish blogger who herself finds great holes in the reporting of climate statistics is particilarly upset because she knows how unprincipled and dishonest the climate establishment is. She sees what Watts has done as akin to aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.

Read her comments HERE

Tom Nelson

Anthony Watts, what have you done? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt

”Anthony wrights to Phil Jones, a guy who literarily hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leeks in the future?

Johnosullivan (Legal analyst and specialist writer on anti-corruption, acts as legal consultant to Dr. Tim Ball)

Why Did Anthony Watts Help Climategate’s Phil Jones?

 “A schism in the ranks of global warming skeptics may ensue due to another gaffe by the world’s most popular science website, WattsUpWithThat. WUWT blogger, Anthony Watts has unashamedly boasted to have tipped off Climategate fraudster, Professor Phil Jones, about a potentially critical further security leak on university Internet servers.”

”You got that? It was his “duty,”says Watts, to help FOIA-denying fraudster Jones (the data-destroyer who unlawfully obstructed other researchers from trying to independently verify CRU climate calculations) to hide even more evidence. With such principled ‘friends’ like Watts does Steve McIntyre need any enemies?

Respected Aussie skeptic, Dr John Ray was so stunned by the Watts email that he penned ‘Controversial action by Anthony Watts’ (December 07, 2011) in response. Dr. Ray bemoans, “Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.” Then Watts appeared to give the finger to Ray and fellow skeptics by declaring, “I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it.”

Watts: Not the First Fool to Aid Professor Jones

 When roundly condemned by more savvy commenters on his blog Watts responded on December 6, 2011 at 10:38 am:

“I was told in the reply from Phil Jones and from AGU that others had also been made aware of it, so I wasn’t the first.”

This Watts statement gives the game away: by declaring he was not aware that others had already tipped off Jones and in offering no further justification for his tactically inept action, he is merely conceding, “it wasn’t me who did it!”

As such the image of a snivelling schoolboy caught misbehaving springs to mind. Above all else, this ill-advised gaffe by Watts proves, if proof were needed, that Watts acted in haste and probably without consulting others. As such it shows once again that “Our Side” are a rag-tag bunch of renegades and not the “well-funded and well-organized” team that the narrative of Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. would have the public believe.

I relate entirely to Dr. Ray and others who are now questioning why Watts would act to help the dastardly Phil Jones to block a potentially excellent source of information for skeptics. Ray speculates that Watts’s apoplexy appears to be triggered by some ”misguided sense of honor.” I can’t see any other logical reason so that may be true.

Ray suspects that an underlying motive is that Watts has become “tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.”

Wider International Frustrations Due to Watts

Ray’s frustrations are echoed by a Swedish blogger (read her comments HERE) similarly perplexed that Watts, a champion of exposing flaws in the ground level global thermometer readings, should want to sink to “aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.” 

Watts just doesn’t seem to have the broader expertize to join the dots on this. In legal parlance, both the mens rea and actus reas were there for any jury to convict Jones of such crimes. Watts doesn’t comprehend that the original criminal charge against Jones under the FOIA was not pursued merely because of a tecnicality –  the short six-month time limit had already expired. “

However, only the self-serving elite in the Crown Prosecution Service, police and UK Government refuse to see that Jones may still be prosecuted for his offenses as per the Fraud Act 2006 ( see Ch. 35. Fraud. ‘1 Fraud. 2 Fraud by false representation. 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information’) where no such time limit gets Jones off the hook.Watts, by being so amenable to Jones, is bolstering the edifice of climate criminality.

Watts just doesn’t get it – these authorities to which Jones is but a mere stooge – are not going to suddenly acquire the principles they manifestly lack and actually start playing by the rules. My own view is thatWattsacted hastily and foolishly to tip off fraudster Jones – such a gaffe gains us nothing and may cost us valuable new information. Scum like Jones do not deserve a helping hand because he and his governmental handlers can’t win a fair fight.”

“But why should Watts want to help scum like Jones? Professor Jones is a man patently caught out engaging in criminal misconduct expressing his intent in emails to colleagues and urging them to join him in unlawfully defying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>USA</a>


How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations

23 januari, 2011

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in 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 around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

(See for example my posts:

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have,

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years,

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data.

Minus 60 C or not?

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data)

Just one example of this historical “adjustment and tweaking” they are doing:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times 2006 to beginning of 2008. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

And what a “coincidence” that the data is always “modified” in only on direction – guess which one.

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

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

Just a couple of weeks ago a new report was published by Patrick Frank that shows that there has NEVER been a measurement of Sensor measurement uncertainty in ALL the weather stations used for the “Global” temperature “record”.  And that “the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected”.


Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA, Energy and Environment, Volume 21, Number 8 / December 2010 DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Abstract here:

Abstract :

“Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”

Summary and Conclusion:

“The assumption of global air temperature sensor noise stationarity is empirically untested and unverified. Estimated noise uncertainty propagates as

   rather than .

Future noise uncertainty in monthly means would greatly diminish if the siting of surface stations is improved and the sensor noise variances become known, monitored, and empirically verified as stationary.

The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.”

See also the letter to the Editors (APS Physics) by Patrick Frank:

See also

So I thought I show you the drastic dropping of weather stations in 1989-1992. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people has no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And you can see on the graph what “happened” to the temperature after that. For some very “odd” reason it went up sharply.


Can there be a connection???


In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

                        1970 (15 094 Stations)

                      1990 (9 475 Stations)

                        2000 (5 265 Stations)

Where did all the stations in China, India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia, Antarctica, and Australia go?????

AND WHY??????

Whole continents “just disappeared” and most of the landmass of Earth is now NOT COVERED.

And how do you compare the “average” Global temperature when they dropped 9829 stations between 1970 and 2000??????

9829 stations that where part of the “average” global temperature????

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

And it gets worse (which in itself s an “achievement”). Look at the map for 2010 – EVEN MORE landmass are “gone” on purpose. Including large parts of USA. See the huge contrast between 2000 an 2010 regarding USA.


See also some of my previous post on this subject:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211


Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

“One Small Problem. There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)”

Here are some more glaring examples of this “tweaking and adjustment” of the temperature “record”:



“NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here. He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.“

See also

Just look at this “tweaking” done by NASA/NOAA in August 2007 to the temperature “record”. They just “happened” to LOWER the temperature 1880-1900 by OVER 0.3 C and then they just “happened” to RISE the temperature 1990-2007 by OVER 0.2 C. So “suddenly” you have a nice “warming trend” where there were NONE before. In fact it was a lowering trend from year 2000 which “suddenly” change to a warming trend with OVER 0.4 C difference.

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

US Agencies Still Fiddling Temperature Record, Reports SPPI

NASA and NOAA, which each receive close to half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding, have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making “global warming” look worse than it is, according to a new paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute.  The findings are reported by Joe D’Aleo, a leading meteorologist.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “Despite billions spent on official claims about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made ‘global warming’, opinion polls show the public are no longer fooled. A  main reason why the voters buy don’t climate alarmism any more is that the tiny but well-connected, lavishly-funded Climategate clique keeps on being caught out bending the scientific evidence.

The problem of data integrity has recently been commented on by MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

Mr. D’Aleo’s paper is a damning exposé of the inner workings of two agencies of the US Government –

The global temperature data from surface stations is “seriously compromised: the data suffer significant contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as changes in land cover and land use”. Numerous peer review papers suggest contamination of 30%, 50% or more.

The state of the temperature database, in the words of one of its operators, is “hopeless”, with “hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy  and duplicate stations”.

•The NASA warming is achieved in part by inventing data in arctic areas where no stations exist.

In the US, the warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, and the warmest year was 1934, NASA’s chief climate scientist announced after the last super El Nino.

NOAA tampered with temperature data in 2000, 2007 and 2009 to create an artificial increase of 0.3 F° in the warming trend since the 1930s.

•NASA admits even today on their website, there is no generally-accepted standard for surface air temperatures.

Temperatures for the 1930s to 1950s have been readjusted downward to make the warming since then seem greater than it is.

Temperatures for recent decades have been readjusted upward to make the warming of the 20th century seem greater than it is.

Over time in the NASA database, the warming trend has been steadily increasing – not because the weather is getting warmer but because NASA keeps tampering with the data.

The data tampering became more serious and more frequent in 2007, when a strong la Niña caused widespread and profound global cooling.

Adjustments by NOAA and NASA, rather than real-world temperature changes, account for virtually all the apparent warming trend in the global data.

NASA and NOAA have repeatedly resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of the unadjusted data and documentation of adjustments made, probably because they fear independent analysis will demonstrate the adjustments are unwarranted and warming insignificant

Global temperature databases are “seriously flawed” and “can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts”.

In a lengthy paper updated in August 2010, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? , Watts and D’Aleo catalogued numerous case studies of temperature data tampering around the world.  This issue is of critical importance  because these very data sets are used as justification of advocacy for formulating and implementing unprecedented policy decisions seeking  radical transformations of our society and institutions.

Said Ferguson, “So blatantly obvious has the tampering become that Congress must mandate a thorough investigation of the temperature records, independent of the government scientists controlling them.  A ‘B’ team of non-government and non-UN experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges, bodges  and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists.”



(by SPPI)

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.

5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.


6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.

8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. Additional adjustments are made to the data which result in an increasing apparent trend. In many cases, adjustments do this by cooling off the early record.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Due to recently increasing frequency of eschewing rural stations and favoring urban airports as the primary temperature data sources, global terrestrial temperature data bases are thus seriously flawed and can no longer be representative of both urban and rural environments. The resulting data is therefore problematic when used to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP should trigger a review of these documents assessing the base uncertainty of forecasts and policy language.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

%d bloggare gillar detta: