Y2Kyoto: Cooking The Climate

11 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Cooking The Climate”

1. The biggest scam and most insideous of pretexts used to divert attention from those who want one world government, and does any body honestly believe even one of them will see jail time? If ever this soon to be backwater country of Canuckistan needs an excuse for a revolution,I sure as heck can’t think of a better time,except maybe 40 years ago.

2. “All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”
   Orwell was supposed to be writing fiction, not manuals for Leviathan.

3. “Climate models can show observations to be wrong”
   A link to an article on a website that apparently offers “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” from the comments section of Real Science.
   The title is laugh out loud ridiculous, but credentialed idiots will run with this theme – and be taken seriously!

4. This chart shows a temp increase of about 0.9 degrees since 1900. That is a whole .007 degrees per year. Is that even measurable?

5. It is for James Bond, JMD.

6. 25 Years from now, Gorebal Warming will seem as silly as the 1975 predictions of the coming Ice Age, seem now.

7. so they clipped off the backend so the hoi polloi cant see the 14 year drop with a quick scan , all après 2000

8. Commenters, the graph is of changes to the actual historical temperatures. Data adjustments. GISS has been diligently cooling the warm periods and warming the cool periods by changing the old data.
   Now when someone talks about record warm temperatures, the record that is being broken is bogus. That’s the scam.

9. Some scientists and journalists just can’t bring themselves to ADMIT that they have been hoodwinked. Clinging to falsified data is not ethical.

10. This is actually almost irrelevant, my views on global warming are probably well known but as to this particular chart, it’s just a series of very small corrections to data (note that the entire scale is barely 0.1 C deg) and the debate is about alleged changes of closer to 1.0 C deg. What’s behind this graph, if anything, is an attempt to render data from different climatological day regimes comparable. There used to be a protocol for reporting data only in terms of overnight low, daytime high ignoring those cases (mostly in winter months) when temperatures fall in the evening resulting in a lower minimum for the now-standard midnight to midnight climatological day. The difference appears to be a matter of about 0.3 C deg for winter months and negligible for summer months. In other words, data that came from the older protocols would have a positive bias compared to more recently collected data. And I think the corrections show this from about the mid-1930s, as to the corrections in the opposite direction for the earlier years, that may have something to do with changes in screen standards which may have been judged to be lacking before the 1930s. In any case, a positive bias applied to data before 1930 would not assist the AGW lobby in their campaign.
    Generally speaking then, this is a bit of a diversion from the main event which (I feel) should be for conservatives to convince political parties who rent out our name to get with the reality of the situation and drop the kid gloves on this issue, just instead demanding that biased AGW agenda-driven pseudo-science be defunded and replaced with more realistic provable science which at this point would be an emphasis on natural variability with a much more subtle anthtopogenic contribution. Zero is subtle enough for me, but let’s toss them a bone and say half a degree per millennium if we’re still on oil in 3014.

11. The first evidence that CAGW was propaganda, was the “correcting” of historic temperature readings.
    Best snark on that; “People were shorter then, so biased the readings high”.
    This intelligence test has shown us how stupid the fools and bandits of our civil services really are.
    “Environment Canada’s Science”.
    Well at least they are not claiming it to be empirical old fashioned science, like using that old method whereby a taxpayer can check their work and verify that they have done what we pay them for.
    Instead its the new science, EC own.
    Welfare is too good for them.