Skip to content

How Climate Scientists Cheat And Deceive

August 7, 2015
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/03/opinions/sutter-climate-skeptics-woodward-oklahoma/

 

Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.

Paul Matthews has a good summary here.

But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time:

 

 

 

Ferguson, the rancher, was giving me a half-smiling death stare throughout my mini-rant. We batted ideas back and forth several times, with him pulling preclipped charts from an agricultural magazine off of his desk.

"We don’t see an honest debate going on," he said.

One of the charts, which used data from upper troposphere, appeared to show that the climate isn’t warming as much as scientists would expect. I checked that out with Hayhoe, who told me this is a common data manipulation: The upper troposphere is above the area of the atmosphere where most carbon dioxide accumulates, meaning it’s not a representative way to measure climate change.

 

I don’t know which chart the rancher pulled out, but I do know that no serious sceptic has ever used data from the upper troposphere to argue that there is no warming. On the contrary, the satellite datasets from RSS and UAH, which show no warming for the last 17 years, are specifically measuring the LOWER troposphere. Hayhoe will certainly also be aware that, according to general climate theory, the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface.

Apparently these two facts were deemed too inconvenient for CNN readers to see.

 

 

But then she goes on to compound her deception, as the hack relates:

 

After this article was first published, Hayhoe wrote me that, more importantly, there were errors in troposphere data, which are commonly misused by climate skeptics.

 

And the link she gives as the basis for this claim? A paper written back in 2006:-

 

image

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/climate/policy/Climate%20USCCSP%20Temp%20Trends%20sap1-1-final-all.pdf

 

The paper certainly acknowledges previous errors in the satellite dataset, but clearly and most importantly states:

 

This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

 

For Hayhoe to claim that sceptics commonly misuse error filled satellite data to disprove global warming is dishonest bunkum unworthy of a proper scientist. Even NOAA, who organised this paper, with Tom Karl the Chief Editor, admitted back in 2006 that the earlier errors no longer existed and that the new datasets showed no discrepancies.

Nobody is arguing that satellite data is perfect, and we know that surface data certainly is not. But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment. For Hayhoe to attempt to try to hide this by building strawmen is an abuse of her position, and shows that she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist.

Advertisements
12 Comments
  1. August 7, 2015 4:08 pm

    Maybe she has early onset dementia?

  2. August 7, 2015 4:39 pm

    After 1945 we had only comic book science in the West, but suspected nothing until late November 2009 when Climategate emails exposed the tip of the iceberg of deceit that had been growing in federal research agencies since nations and national academies of science were united into a giant Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths on October 24, 1945.

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) best illustrates the growth of deceit after seventy years (1945-2015).

    DOE now denies the source of energy that powers the universe and causes it to expand and fill interstellar space with hydrogen – NEUTRON REPULSION in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The now expanding Cosmos

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    My research mentor, the late Prof. Paul K. Kuroda, tried to prevent this deception by secretly retaining a copy of Japan’s successful atomic bomb design for fifty-seven years (1945-2002):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

  3. Eliza permalink
    August 7, 2015 4:49 pm

    Well judging from the GOP debate no one seems to give a royal XXXX about climate change, global warming. I thinks its ended as an issue. Clinton will win, the GOP just is unable to put forward a good candidate such as Cruz or Rubio and personally I think the Clintons are probably 100% AGW skeptics without letting anyone know it (for the time being)

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    August 7, 2015 7:02 pm

    You have written:
    “… but I do know that no serious sceptic has ever used data from the upper troposphere to argue that there is no warming.
    There is a subtle thing about this, namely, the models claimed there would be warming in the upper troposphere (a so called “hot spot”) and, so, the temperature in the region would be an indicator of climate change. Sceptics have argued, and continue to do so, that the lack of the “hot spot” means the models are wrong – not that there has been no warming anywhere. Jo Nova did a post on this on May 23 of this year. Her “The Skeptic’s Handbook” (2009) discusses the hot spot as item #1 of four important points.
    I can see why this subtlety might confuse someone with the intellectual talent of Katharine Hayhoe.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment.

    The truly interesting divergence is between modeled temperatures and those found in the lower troposphere.

    The surface temperature information is only useful for pilots.
    With respect to climate – it is not-fit-for-purpose.

  5. Tomo permalink
    August 7, 2015 11:14 pm

    JD Sutter is to CNN as the Harrabin is to BBC. Journalistic objectivity and honest reportage were cast aside for activist advocacy ages ago – as a short trawl of the guy’s output will rapidly reveal.

  6. August 8, 2015 5:35 am

    It gets more frightening daily
    How they try to mislead,
    And with misinformation
    The misinformed they eagerly feed;
    But the truth will come out
    At the end of the day,
    Pity by then countless billions
    Will have been wasted away!

    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/what-if-it-got-colder/

  7. iurockhead permalink
    August 8, 2015 4:05 pm

    “….. she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist.”

    Wait, you mean she WAS considered a serious scientist at one time? Who knew?

  8. Ken permalink
    August 8, 2015 4:56 pm

    Mr. Sutter has not only drunk the warmist Koolaid, he has licked out the cup and gone back for seconds.

    But, don’t blame him. Although he has the job title of “journalist” (to the everlasting shame of actual journalists), he has allowed himself to be hijacked by the demands of his bosses for more and more salacious details. They leave him little time to research both sides of the issue. Lord knows his bosses have yet to see a fact they would not ignore if such fact runs counter to whatever issues are their top priority.

    As a lifelong resident of Oklahoma, I can tell you that most of this state’s residents can sense the presence of cow plop. AGW is redolent of cow ploppage.

    As for myself, I bought into the alarmist view until about 2009. That is when I started actually reading about the issues. And even though the mainstream media (MSM) is almost totally sold out to the AGW crowd, they still report many facts that led me to my current positions: that climate science does not know the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2, and therefore we have no way of knowing what to do about it, if anything.

    Do I believe the climate is changing? It always has and there is no reason to believe that it will stop.

  9. August 8, 2015 8:08 pm

    @ken

    I do blame him – mostly because of his tiresomely repeated protestations of professionalism and due diligence which are by any measure mendacious and utterly insincere.

    An all too familiar type on this side of the pond – The Guardian newspaper and The BBC specialise in employing / cultivating this sort of BS artist – climate justice campaigner – what kind of job description is that???.

  10. August 9, 2015 1:01 am

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.

Trackbacks

  1. Satellite Temperatures and Surface Temperatures Diverge | The Drinking Water Advisor

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: