The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[Angel]

Queer does not mean gay, homo...

queer/kwi(ə)r/
adjective

strange; odd.
(especially of a man) homosexual.

noun

a homosexual man.

[ELVIS]

The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Fail. Five more years of no warming followed.

Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere:



The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so.... Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints… Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable…

While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase…

In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.

This is “the science”. Why do warmists keep ignoring it?

With the science against the faith it has so frantically promoted, the UN searches for someone who will turn the debate. Note well: it’s looking for someone who isn’t a scientist but who can play on guilt, racial politics, gender politics and victimhood:

The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.

The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.

The UN has outed itself with this stunt. Its criteria ensure no leading climate scientists need apply. See, this is no longer about science at all.

[Seshmeister]

The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:

Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere:

As ever your academic is ridiculous you can read all about him here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist, best known for undermining global warming denialism by advancing a series of bizarre and implausible objections to mainstream science.

McKitrick is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. As such, he agrees with the following statement in the declaration:
Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.

[ELVIS]

Global warming dot org

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress, Coral Davenport reports in the New York Times.

Were you surprised? In domestic climate policy, Team Obama routinely flouts the separation of powers. Their M.O. from day one has been to ‘enact’ regulatory requirements that, if proposed in legislation, would be dead on arrival.

During this year and next, climate negotiators are again trying to work out a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expired at the end of 2012. Under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty enters into force only if ratified, and ratification requires the approval of “two-thirds of Senators present.”

Although Democrats control the Senate, a ratification vote on Kyoto II would fail if held today. With Republicans expected to pick up Senate seats in November, the constitutional path to a new climate treaty seems hopelessly blocked.

So, according to Davenport, the Obama administration plans to negotiate an agreement that is not a treaty yet binding in effect:

To sidestep that [two-thirds] requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The agreement Obama seeks is no mere ‘coalition of the willing.’ Even though not ratified by the Senate, elements of agreement would still be enforceable as a matter of international law. From the NYT article:

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

Is such a “hybrid” feasible? The 1992 treaty to which Davenport refers is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, more commonly known as the Rio Treaty. My colleague Chris Horner has warned for years that many climate campaigners interpret the ostensibly “voluntary” Rio Treaty as obligating Annex I (industrial) countries to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, per Article 4.2(a), each Annex I country “shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.”

On the other hand, Horner points out, the Senate ratified the Framework Convention based on its “shared understanding” with the Bush I administration that the treaty does not authorize the executive branch to make binding commitments on behalf of the U.S. absent additional advice and consent from the Senate. As the Foreign Relations Committee stated in its report to the floor:

On the Climate Change Convention, the Foreign Relations Committee also noted that decisions by the parties to adopt targets and timetables for limiting emissions would have [to be] submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. It noted further: that a decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the ‘‘shared understanding’’ of the Convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate’s advice and consent. [Exec. Rept. 102–55, p. 14].

Here’s my sense of how this plays out. Obama will interpret the Convention as obligating the U.S. to implement the “mitigation” components of his climate action plan. Those include the ever-growing list of regulations administered by EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and other agencies, but potentially also subsidies and tax credits for green energy and green jobs.

Obama will use the climate action plan initiatives as a basis for demanding similar “pledges” from other nations — but also use the hoped-for agreement to lock in his domestic climate agenda.

If he pulls it off, future Congresses and the next president won’t be able to overturn EPA regulations, for example, without violating our Framework Convention “pledges” to the “international community.” At some point, Senate opponents may be so demoralized they’ll throw in the towel and consent to ratify a Kyoto successor treaty.

It’s tempting to believe the sheer audacity of the plan will be its undoing. That would be a mistake. This administration is running roughshod over the separation of powers with no effective pushback from Congress and barely a slap on the wrist from the courts.

“We cannot guarantee victory, but only deserve it,” Sir Winston said. To deserve victory, skeptics and constitutionalists must start gearing up now for a climate treaty battle the likes of which we have not seen since the 1997 Kyoto negotiations.

[Seshmeister]

I thought even you agreed that your politicians are owned by big business who don't give a shit if the planet gets wrecked.

I hope Obama does find a way around that.

[ELVIS]

Obomba is bought and paid for...

He couldn't find his way to the Hawaii dept of health...

[Von Halen]

Obomba is bought and paid for...

What politician isn't? If they aren't bought and paid for in the beginning, it doesn't take them long to conform.

The lobbyists are the ones running, and ruining, this Country.

[Nickdfresh]

Obomba is bought and paid for...

He couldn't find his way to the Hawaii dept of health...

And the assholes you're shilling for aren't?

You're the biggest conspiracy douche here, yet a fairly obvious conspiracy by oil and gas industries to spread misinformation, pseudoscience, and outright lies via "thinks tanks" escapes you while you still act like a good little whore for them...

[Seshmeister]

That's the great irony.
The issue where there is a global conspiracy by big powerful rich people and he not only refuses to see it, he actually promotes it.

[Kristy]

The issue where there is a global conspiracy by big powerful rich people and he not only refuses to see it, he actually promotes it.

Problem with that is these ridiculous conspiracy post are not so much Trollvis as much as him repeating what his F A T community college dropout tells him to think.