Skip to content

I Wonder What They Are Afraid Of?

April 27, 2015

By Paul Homewood

   

ScreenHunter_2060 Apr. 27 11.16

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-sceptic-group-sets-up-inquiry-into-accuracy-of-global-temperature-records-10204961.html

 

 

It has not taken long for the left wing press to attack the investigation into the integrity of global temperature records!

 

The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

 

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit.

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.

 

I wonder what they are afraid of?

22 Comments
  1. April 27, 2015 10:28 am

    The Time Has Come to Stop Being Afraid

    “As politicians keep feeding us their diet of fear,
    And they keep on telling us that the end is now near.
    As predictions are not happening in the way that they say,
    And the claims just get wilder, day after day……’

    Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-4m

  2. Joe Public permalink
    April 27, 2015 10:43 am

    The ‘Biased‘ Independent’s headline can be countered with one simple question:

    “Are all observed temperature data accurate, ‘yes’ or, ‘no’?”

    • saveenergy permalink
      April 27, 2015 11:39 am

      And the answer they’d give would be….YES….so that’s more settled science; now stop questioning what we tell you.

      A better question might be:
      “Will you stake your career or £500,000 or12 month jail time, that all observed temperature data is accurate, ‘yes’ or, ‘no’?”

      • AndyG55 permalink
        April 27, 2015 12:21 pm

        If all observed data was accurate, they would have had no excuse for “homogenising and adjusting”

        The big question is if their “homogenising and adjustments”, which incidentally account for a largish proportion of the claimed warming, are actually valid… or agenda driven.

        The only way they can answer that question is to come forth with all the reasons for the data manipulation.

        No REAL scientist would NOT want their work independently validated.

        They are in a serious Catch 22 situation, aren’t they. 🙂

        Gotta luv KARMA !!!

      • Paul permalink
        April 27, 2015 7:54 pm

        If the observed data is accurate then why does it differ from RSS data sets?
        The RSS systems were put in place to cover the inadequacies and poor coverage of observed temperature data, so its really an easy question – which data set is more reliable/accurate?

  3. Tom Collins permalink
    April 27, 2015 11:05 am

    I don’t like the phrase “climate change deniers”. It’s a bit too Biblical!
    I prefer Global Warming Rejecters !
    We all know it’s a con, even the fanatics supporting the myths.

    • April 28, 2015 3:20 pm

      I prefer “heretic”

      • TonyM permalink
        April 28, 2015 4:43 pm

        “Heretic” is much more in line with the religion of Global Warming. After all, they do worship at the altar of their climate models in which they have absolute faith. They offer apocalyptic scenarios to frighten, control, and obtain money. Their Vatican is the UN and their Pope until recently was Rajendra Pachauri. The head disciple is Al Gore. All disciples meet regularly as a community to worship together at climate “conferences”. Their bible is the Summary For Policymakers issued every few years. They burn heretics at the stake through abasement, marginalizing, and preventing grants from being distributed.

  4. Derek Buxton permalink
    April 27, 2015 11:35 am

    “What are they afraid of?” Being found out, think of the cost to them to say nothing of the ire of the People who are being robbed. As for Bob Ward, surely he is the one playing politics, the whole scam was political from day one.

    • April 27, 2015 9:23 pm

      Dear Bob Ward, it seems like yesterday I saw Lawson put him back in his basket at a public meeting – beautifully done I may say.

      Even the Royal Society couldn’t stomach him and he moved over to be the shaman for that spiv Jeremy Grantham.

  5. TonyM permalink
    April 27, 2015 12:44 pm

    Has anyone ever addressed the issue of whether an “Average Global Temperature” is even a real measurable quantity, or if it is, what is the appropriate averaging formula and data collection methodology to calculate it?. Have the global warming advocates justified their data collection methodologies and averaging calculations based on the physics of the Earth-atmosphere system? There are many ways to calculate an average. Some physicists argue that no such number “average global temperature” exists because the Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, climate is mathematically chaotic, and temperature is an intensive physical variable. Some have gone so far as to say that averaging temperatures from around the world results in a number that is no more meaningful than averaging the phone numbers in a telephone directory to get an average telephone number.

  6. Joe Public permalink
    April 27, 2015 1:03 pm

    A previous prediction the Indy was pleased to report:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html

    Has anyone noticed if the Indy has issued a correction for that previous scaremongering?

  7. April 27, 2015 2:15 pm

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Usual response: never mind the data, get the ‘D’ word into a headline!

  8. April 27, 2015 2:43 pm

    Concerning a „Temperature Data Review Project“ an analysis by Ron Clutz concludes:
    “…, it is not only a matter of concern that individual station histories are altered by adjustments. But also the adjusted dataset is the one used as input into programs computing global anomalies and averages. This much diminished dataset does not inspire confidence in the temperature reconstruction products built upon it.”
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

  9. Kon Dealer permalink
    April 27, 2015 9:52 pm

    What are they afraid of? The Gravy-train running into the buffers.
    No more subsidy farms, grants etc.

  10. April 27, 2015 10:08 pm

    Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
    What They Are Afraid Of?

    Scrutiny.

    Hence the ‘dust’ being kicked up.

  11. Earl Goudie permalink
    April 27, 2015 10:27 pm

    The Truth!! What else is there for them to fear?

  12. Dave N permalink
    April 27, 2015 10:53 pm

    Accusing it of being creation of fake controversy is a political move, not scientific. If it were scientific, they’d rebut the science undertaken in the review.

    The irony burns so much, it turns to ash

  13. April 28, 2015 4:34 am

    Booker’s article has 10343 Comments ..This Indy one has 57
    (You can see from the comment likes only about 2, that few people take it seriously ..some good comments by Harpo but the public seem to be ignoring the article anyway.)
    – Add that Indy article to the Museum of CAGW Disinformation along with their 2008 article that Joe Public just mentioned “Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer”

  14. mem permalink
    April 28, 2015 6:49 am

    It is interesting that the pro-warmist movement worldwide is descending into such obvious disinformation and rabid abuse. I guess the zealots realise the science isn’t happening and deep down feel pretty vulnerable. They are lashing out which is not what scientists or rational people do on the whole.Ordinary folks that previously used the “science is settled” and “trust the experts” lines to bolster their conversations also seem far less vocal these days. Who blames them. They were taken for a ride by people they should have been able to trust.

  15. steverichards1984 permalink
    April 28, 2015 8:04 am

    “The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science.”
    That right, thats science!

    You analyse and re-analyse data to find problems, refine your solutions, your theories.

    Why are the global warming nutters trying to claim this review is bad?

    Any review, when transparent and publicly accessible must move us forward.

    I find comments such as those from Bob Ward display a fine level of scientific naivety.

  16. Scott permalink
    July 17, 2015 4:02 am

    What they’re afraid of is the GWPF exposing them for the frauds it will most likely be proven that they are…..

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: