NOAA Fabricating Temperature Data (1 Viewer)

[Jim11]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data

In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This should go well

 

[Mario Kart]

Weather vs. Climate

Explain the two for us, Jim. TIA

 

[Josie Maran]

IT'S GETTIN HOT IN HERRRRE.

 

[Jim11]

Weather vs. Climate

Explain the two for us, Jim. TIA

Since you're evidently ignorant - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Happy? Now tell me what that has to do with making up temperature data.

 

[Doug B]

Is that the entire article? I realize it's commentary, not meant to be the be-all-end-all of the debate, but I only see three paragraphs. Is the sentence that concludes " ... the aberrations of group psychology" the end of the piece?

 

[fantasycurse42]

I blame Obama

 

[drunken slob]

Michael Mann = Liar

IPCC = Liars

IUCN = Liars (We made our Polar Bear numbers up, oops)

Himalayan Ice Melt claims = Liars

And now, our own federal government via NOAA = Liars

Come in and explain all this away apologists

 

[TheIronSheik]

 

[SeaDogStat]

What does Jim Cantore say? I believe anything he says!

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

I blame Obama

I blame Michelle for making it hot in here....mmmeeeeoooowwww

 

[NCCommish]

Ah yes the guy who has been caught wrong so many times the only people he has credibility with are the chem trailers. And of course the Telegraph Europe's go to denial newspaper. Such a pretty pair.

 

[Jim11]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agency’s methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have “shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.”

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because it’s a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

I'd be interested in the correlation between the rise in global temperature vs. The moments when you open your mouth.

 

[NCCommish]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agency’s methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have “shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.”

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because it’s a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

 

[Jim11]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agency’s methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have “shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.”

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because it’s a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

That's nice of them...and if they can cut their emissions in half, they'll be about were the USA is right now.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Michael Mann = Liar

IPCC = Liars

IUCN = Liars (We made our Polar Bear numbers up, oops)

Himalayan Ice Melt claims = Liars

And now, our own federal government via NOAA = Liars

Come in and explain all this away apologists

• Location:West By God Virginia

All that's really necessary here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agency’s methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have “shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.”

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because it’s a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

That's nice of them...and if they can cut their emissions in half, they'll be about were the USA is right now.

Why should a country with 3x the population have the same emissions?

Should the US match, say, Iceland?

 

[Josie Maran]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agencys methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because its a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

That's nice of them...and if they can cut their emissions in half, they'll be about were the USA is right now.

They just passed us as #1 a couple of years ago. I highly doubt they're doubling us already.

 

[skol asylum]

But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

Who Is Steven Goddard?



It seems fitting that I should have at least one post looking at the Man who’s pseudo-science blog this one parodies.

So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?

According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;

“I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”

So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change. Also from various comments and posts it seems that he likes soccer and follows the English Premiership and enjoys cycling.

If you do a search for "Steven Goddard" on Google, it doesn't really show up much and this man seems very elusive, almost invisible. There are no photographs and no biography to the point that ‘Steven Goddard’ may even be a pseudonym. The cynic in me might suggest the name picked as a method of generating search hits on “Goddard” + “climate”.

He has had some articles published in The Register a British technology news and opinion website. Searching his name at The Reg gives links to just 5 opinion pieces all from about four years ago.
One of his pieces posted on Friday 15th August 2008 called ‘ “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There’s something rotten north of Denmark” he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;



Steven Goddard writes:
“Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”

Unfortunately, this original error raced around the world on the the blogosphere and in many cases remains uncorrected. More information on this retraction can be found here.

Mr Goddard has previously popped up with numerous and inventive “sea ice updates” at Anthony Watts’ WTFUWT blog. This should be a clear warning to any WATTS followers as to the awful standard permissible for posting there, and some embarrassing back tracking has also happened as this post shows; “Arctic Ice Graphing LessonIncreasing Bt 50,000 km2 per year”.


Goddard’s ignorance on sea ice has also made him a topic at Skeptical Science.

Mr Goddard has also contributed to to the Science and Public Policy Institute‘s never-ending stream of climate denier propaganda joining the ranks of the truly potty with Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley now as a peer. A good over view of his standard of scientific rigour at SPPI can be found at sciblogs;


If anyone else has any relevant information, or even if Mr Goddard himself care to get in touch, to fill in the blanks with some biography or a picture, feel welcome.

UPDATE: I don't know how I missed it but it looks recent - Mr Goddard has an 'About Me' on his site confirming his engineering qualifications, that his name is in deed a nom de plume and claims to be an environmentalist.

 

[Apes with Guns]

 

[Jim11]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agencys methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because its a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

That's nice of them...and if they can cut their emissions in half, they'll be about were the USA is right now.

They just passed us as #1 a couple of years ago. I highly doubt they're doubling us already.

Well, according to this - http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/global-warming/140113/dirty-deeds-the-worlds-biggest-polluters-co2-emissions-country

It's nearly double.

 

[cstu]

That crazy old EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz34R8sd8nm

But the supposed $30 billion in climate benefits in 2030 touted by the EPA is overstated, according to a new study by the liberal Brookings Institution. The agencys methodology on the rule overstates the benefits to make its regulations more attractive.

A working paper by Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi found that recent assessments of EPA climate policies have shifted to a worldwide benefits approach, leading to a substantial increase in the estimated benefits.

What does this mean? Global warming is a policy issue with no domestic solution. The U.S. may reduce emissions, but the benefits of those reductions to the U.S. alone would be minimal because its a global issue. This means the costs of fighting global warming often outweigh the domestic benefits.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/report-epas-claimed-benefits-of-climate-rule-overblown-by-15-fold/#ixzz35UTQUw6m

If only China would announce that since America has started to do something about carbon so will they. Oh wait they did.

That's nice of them...and if they can cut their emissions in half, they'll be about were the USA is right now.

They just passed us as #1 a couple of years ago. I highly doubt they're doubling us already.

Link

China - 8,286,892 (26% of world's CO2 emissions)

U.S. - 4,433,057 (14% of world's CO2 emissions)

 

[Socrates11]

So is Florida going to be underwater soon or what?

 

[drunken slob]

Michael Mann = Liar

IPCC = Liars

IUCN = Liars (We made our Polar Bear numbers up, oops)

Himalayan Ice Melt claims = Liars

And now, our own federal government via NOAA = Liars

Come in and explain all this away apologists

• Location:West By God Virginia

All that's really necessary here.

Clearly you don't get the joke about my location. I ain't mad at ya