click; Ian Pilmer speaks to Alan Jones
The BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) today has come under increased attention as its revealed (yet again, but this time by the unfolding of Climategate) the sorry state of its climate data. The code commented on as ‘false’ and ‘a bloody mess’ by climategate BOM says “It was unlikely to have come directly from the bureau’s centre because unchecked, raw data was rarely requested for climate analysis“. Hmmm, unusual – normally scientists want the raw data without all the artificial BOM adjustments so they CAN analysis the data. I would say a lot of scientists would be curious as to whether BOM also didnt ‘hide the decline‘. Like the American stations the Australian stations seem a mess, Anthony Watts at Surface Stations has been auditing the American Stations and what he has found isnt pretty. Warwick Hughes comments on BOM problems here. Warwick also says the BOM is a national disgrace! Even the BOM acknowledges that “the majority of stations do not have a complete unbroken record for any given element”. Doesnt seem to stop them issuing climate alarmism! More here
Ooops the dutch likewise seem to have a problem with temperature data!. Here they relocate a weather station and tell nobody! Well hey you can always whitewash it!
Does anyone use the WMO standards anymore?
The HUGE question is, if the raw records were unadjusted would it show that the solar connection is as robust as was previously believed BEFORE the AGW scam? And if so, and with the current solar slumber shouldn’t our Governments be rushing to look at policy for global cooling instead. The longer they delay the longer peoples lives are put at risk! As David Archibald says “The earth is getting colder and this WILL accelerate”
Dont begrudge the skepticism it can only help the debate, one flaw that wipes out the crisis, a climate scientist responds to climategate, climategate goes uber-viral, Copenhagen IGNORES climategate, Climategate needs an independant investigator, I was wrong!, Poliwood – climategate hits hollywood, Global warming bulldozer
Earliest snowfall ON RECORD in Houston, Earth could plunge into a new ice age,
Filed under: Uncategorized
T W A W K I 
The old saying “youcan fool some of the people some of the time, most of the people most of the time ,But you can’t fool all the people all the time” rings true here.I blame who ever is funding all this mis-information for this mess. And you can bet their pockets are well lined!
“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.
A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.
Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.
But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.
The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.
All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.
It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.
Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.