Temperature readings from the Arctic and Antarctic used to estimate the effects of global warming are nothing more than guesswork, a climate researcher has said. Dr Benny Peiser heads up the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which last month announced its intention to launch a wide-ranging review of the data underpinning claims on global warming. The review was launched primarily in response to interested parties flagging up major discrepancies between data gathered from weather stations, which marked 2014 out as the hottest year on record, and data gathered from satellites, which showed no warming for over 18 years. The scale of the discrepancy lead to accusations that weather station data had been “adjusted”, thereby exaggerating the effects of global warming, something which the Foundation is keen to investigate. The review panel, headed by Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, will be taking submissions for evidence until the 30th June, but Dr Peiser has said that questions and concerns have already been raised about how the discrepancy could have come about. “There’s a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on,” he told the Express. “Given these concerns, we thought there must be a better way of answering these questions. “This is not about anthropogenic or man-made climate change, this is about whether the gatekeepers of the data, the meteorological agencies, are providing reliable information.” Dr Peiser raised concerns that some researchers who contribute to the temperature records have been outspoken in their views on climate change, saying: “People ask why they are the gatekeepers of the data if they have such strong opinions. Should they really be the guardians of data quality and high standards? “As in every scientific venture, there should be quality checks just to make sure people know exactly what is happening. In a way, this inquiry is a quality control exercise.” Inevitably, some of those whose careers depend on global warming have hit back, accusing Dr Peiser and the research panel team of conducting nothing more than a “political stunt”. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, admitted that some temperature records had been altered, but argued that the changes were insignificant. “The adjustments make no significant difference to the obvious upward trend in global average temperature over the last century,” he said. “The Foundation is a political lobby group, and funded by secret donors, not a transparent scientific organisation. “I suspect that it simply wants to manufacture doubt about the temperature records to create a distraction while countries are negotiating a new international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, to be agreed at a summit in Paris at the end of this year.” Ward insisted that the alterations were legitimate as they were monitored by outside bodies, amongst them Britain’s Met Office. But the Met Office has itself been unequivocal in its support for the belief that human activity is driving catastrophic climate change. On its website, the Met Office states: “There’s overwhelming and growing evidence that the warming is due to vastly increased – and still increasing – quantities of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” On another page, entitled “Impacts of Climate Change”, the Met Office states: “Higher temperatures, fresh water shortages, higher sea levels and extreme weather events will each affect regions differently. “The planet faces a range of scenarios depending on the level of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. Some change is inevitable but the extent and severity of long-term climate disruption depends on future emissions.” Threats to food security, poverty and “disasters” are all listed as likely outcomes of climate change. Data adjustments are not the only issue raised so far by the review. Dr Peiser also highlighted the practice of “infilling” data where a lack of weather stations means no real world readings are being taken. Without gathering real world data, these data points are nothing more than guesswork. And he said there were problems both with the siting of weather stations, and with differences arising between technologies. “In some areas there are hardly any weather stations so [the figures] have to be filled in, so they [meteorological agencies] kind of estimate. Particularly in the Arctic and Antarctic, there are very few weather stations so you have to make a lot of infilling. “Then there are other problems. Obviously you have to adjust temperatures for growing cities and so therefore this will have an effect on local temperatures. “Different technologies will also produce different readings, simply because the technology has changed and you have to take that into account. “But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer. “The panel will look at whether the adjustments are all going in one direction or are they all balanced.” Accompanying Professor Kealey on the panel are Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Wijngaarden, all of whom are associated with North American universities. Their findings are expected to be released later this year. http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ing-climate-change-nothing-more-than-a-guess/
Again jerm, you are the laughingstock and a loon. To use such an obviously biased source. Basically just a propaganda arm of the FF interests. And you want us to take you seriously? Ever come up with ONE climatologist that denies AGW? You are a joke The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate denier group. It opposes action to mitigate climate change. Founded by Nigel Lawson,[1] it is a registered educational charity "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to mitigate global warming.[2] The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8] In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]
The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit There has always been an odd tenor to discussions among climate scientists, policy wonks, and politicians, a passive-aggressive quality, and I think it can be traced to the fact that everyone involved has to dance around the obvious truth, at risk of losing their status and influence. The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful shit.
this is just one section on this page... we have also given you a list of 31,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17] Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21] Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23] Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29] Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39] Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43] Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49] Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51] Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]
In the midst of all that fear mongering... a little bit of truth slipped out in that article... (and remember the only "evidence" you had that man made co2 was causing warming were models... that have failed on real time data. ) From your article... "I think there's a good bit of truth in this. Scientific climate models are not meant to produce predictions or even plausible scenarios. Their only job is to show what assumptions and inputs yield what outputs. Change some of the assumptions but not others — say, more wind, less nuclear — and you can get a good comparative understanding of the two policies. But models are never meant to predict. Theoretically policymakers ought to know this. But political misuse of modeling is as old as modeling."
So jerm, one climatologist that denies AGW? Anything? Have you shown that CO2 is not a GHG yet? Wow!! Botanists and politicians !! Jerm you are fool and a loon. But above all, you are an excellent sheep. Run off to church now.
Paper: Climate Policy Models Are ‘Useless’ Put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/15/paper-climate-policy-models-are-useless/
look at the deceitful little troll who sells greenhouses gases for a living... implying things that are lies. Here is a truth... have you or any or any nutter produced any peer reviewed evidence that man mad co2 causes warming in our complex environment.
Yes, you have ignored the huge amounts of science I and others have presented. Just like a true religious nut job. So jerm..........one climatologist? Not even one? Just shut up and go away, loon.