Skip to content

Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit

October 7, 2018
tags:
Breitbart reports on a newly published audit of the Hadley Centre’s Global Temperature Dataset

Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit

ROME, ITALY - 2015/11/29: Thousands of citizens and environmental activists take part in the 'Global Climate March' to call for tougher action to tackle climate change in Rome. The awareness event took place ahead of the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention …
Giuseppe Ciccia/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.

HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

“It’s very careless and amateur,” he says. “About the standard of a first-year university student.”

Among the many errors found by McLean were:

  • Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.
  • Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.
  • Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones,  giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.
  • Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.
  • Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.
  • A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)
  • A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).

Yet this is the temperature record from which the IPCC has formed its judgement that the “global warming” since the mid-19th century is sufficiently alarming for governments around the world to have to take urgent action, which is currently costing taxpayers around $2 trillion per annum.

The HadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (of Climategate notoriety) at the University of East Anglia.
According to McLean:

“It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset. If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries. The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.”

McLean’s report could scarcely have come at a more embarrassing time for the IPCC. On Monday, it will release its 2018 Summary for Policy Makers claiming that the global warming crisis is more urgent than ever. But what McLean’s audit strongly suggests is that these claims are based on data that simply cannot be trusted.

Though the IPCC uses three main surface temperature datasets – the others are compiled in the U.S. by NASA and NOAA – the UK-based HadCRUT is its preferred one for historical reasons: the founder of the Hadley Centre (where HadCRUT is partly produced) was Sir John Houghton, who also happened to be co-chairman of the Working Group 1 of IPCC and was editor of its first report.

So the fact that the IPCC’s primary dataset has been shown up as shoddy, unreliable and amateurish is not helpful to the IPCC’s credibility.

As McLean says:

“Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.”

McLean is the Australian IT analyst who broke another scandal about the global warming scare: that it was effectively the creation of just 53 people.

He reached this figure by analysing the IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report, which, according to the IPCC, represented a “consensus” of the views of “2500 climate scientists”.

But in fact the number of scientists involved in the key Chapter 9 – the one which reached the headline conclusion that human-induced warming was detectable in every continent except Antarctica, and that this was leading to all manner of disasters from melting glaciers and sea ice to changing rainfall patterns and more intense cyclone activity – was just 53.

Furthermore – as Christopher Booker reported in his The Real Global Warming Disaster –  these 53 authors mostly belonged to a close professional network, intimately bound with Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Not so much a “consensus” then. More – as the subsequent Climategate scandal confirmed – a cabal of vested interests.

McLean’s audit on the failings of HadCRUT is available here from the website Robert Boyle Publishing. It costs US $8 which may provide some recompense for his unpaid work, conducted as an extension of his PhD thesis, supervised at James Cook University by Peter Ridd.

Ridd is the professor who was hounded out of his job after telling the truth about the Great Barrier Reef: that it wasn’t being destroyed by “global warming.” Since this didn’t accord with the narrative being promoted by his alarmist institution he was fired on the pretext that he had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that misrepresents the nature and conduct of the disciplinary process through publi­cations online and in the media”.

Such are the inaccuracies in the data record, McLean believes, that it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen.

But he estimates that of the 0.6 degrees C that the planet has warmed since 1950, perhaps one third has been exaggerated.

So the real figure, he estimates, is a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the last seven decades.

“Most people can’t even notice a change in temperature of 1 degree C for one moment to the next. So the idea that governments are spending so much money on the basis of a rise in temperature a fraction of that spread over almost 70 years is just idiotic beyond belief.”

The Hadley Centre and Met Office will find it difficult to dismiss McLean as a crank. In March 2016, he advised them of certain errors which they promptly corrected. So he’s an authority they take seriously.

 

Advertisements
36 Comments
  1. Brian Richards permalink
    October 7, 2018 10:52 am

    Here’s a good one:

    RISING SEAS : Atlantic Canada is sinking as water levels swell | The Chronicle Herald

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | RISING SEAS : Atlantic Canada is sinking as water levels swell | The Chroni… The secluded West Hants cemetery whispers peace and tranquility. | |

    |

    |

    From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT To: threespires1@yahoo.ca Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 6:40 AM Subject: [New post] 35779 #yiv8568338007 a:hover {color:red;} #yiv8568338007 a { text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;} #yiv8568338007 a.yiv8568338007primaryactionlink:link, #yiv8568338007 a.yiv8568338007primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;} #yiv8568338007 a.yiv8568338007primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv8568338007 a.yiv8568338007primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;} #yiv8568338007 WordPress.com | Paul Homewood posted: ” Breitbart reports on a newly published audit of the Hadley Centre’s Global Temperature Dataset Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit By James Delingpole Giuseppe Ciccia/Pacific Press/Ligh” | |

  2. J C L Sharp permalink
    October 7, 2018 11:13 am

    HadCRUD?

    • J C L Sharp permalink
      October 7, 2018 1:16 pm

      This four-letter word is perfectly respectable. It appears in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford online dictionaries. The latter designates it as “informal”.

    • October 8, 2018 2:06 pm

      As the Climatic Research Unit or CRU, I refer to them as the “Motley CRU”.

  3. October 7, 2018 11:30 am

    I’ll get confirmation that this is true when I don’t see it reported by the BBC.

    • HotScot permalink
      October 7, 2018 12:43 pm

      Phillip

      Just something else for the alarmists and the MSM to ignore.

      No wonder we’re sceptical.

      I haven’t met a single alarmist victim who has bothered to read anything contradicting the commonly held misconception of catastrophic AGW yet they call sceptics ignorant because we bother to look and make a balanced judgement on the subject.

      None of them I know (common laymen like myself, mind you) are aware of this site, WUWT, Tony Heller, Peter Ridd, Tim Ball, the evil socialist Christina Figueres (aka Cruella Deville), Roy Spencer, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova or Judith Curry.

      But we’re the ignorant ones somehow, because Cook couldn’t muster 97 scientists to support his 97% concencus whilst 30,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, but of course that’s rubbish because it was infiltrated by scheming green activists.

      I would like to think this report does something, but it won’t, there’s to many vested interests.

      Unless of course, the sceptical community as a whole abandons the HadCRUT4 dataset altogether and creates a more realistic dataset from which comparisons can be drawn. I suspect that’s something even the MSM might be interested in. To date it’s either been accept it, or ridicule it.

      • October 8, 2018 2:13 pm

        Donald Trump was so skeptical he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord in June, 2017. What a glorious day in the White House Rose Garden!!

  4. October 7, 2018 11:32 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Round and round we go.
    Where the data points stop nobody knows.

  5. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 7, 2018 11:51 am

    It’s not actually a revelation is it?

    We’ve long known that the data is sparse, inconsistent, inadequate, incoherent, mangled, manipulated, adjusted…….. whatever, and especially so in the SH earlier in the records.

    And that claiming records or trends of 0.01C, 0.1C, or even 1C are just BS dishonesty.

    Nice to have a more thorough investigation though – not that anyone that matters will mention it or tale any notice.

  6. October 7, 2018 11:59 am

    It must have been at about the time of Climategate that I looked into the Quality Control Procedures of the Met Office (Hadley included) and UEA and came to the conclusion that their procedures were totally inadequate. So no surprise here.

    • dave permalink
      October 7, 2018 1:16 pm

      Thank goodness for the instruments on the satellites. Else, the professional charlatans would be telling even bigger lies.

      ‘They’ must regret allowing those little packages, with their freely available data streams, to fly. It never occurred to them how the data would restrict their ‘Just So!’ stories! Still, it is a minor setback, as the general public is studiously ignorant of the satellites’ findings.

  7. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 7, 2018 12:23 pm

    An ideal topic for the BBC’s new climate slots.

  8. John Scott permalink
    October 7, 2018 1:14 pm

    The problem was never AGW it was about money re-distribution re the UN where Ottmar Edenhofer, the UN IPCC official stated up front that “carbon taxes were a way to re-distribute wealth and was not an environmental action. In order to make the world “fairer”, countries with carbon assets were to reduce manufacturing or leave assets in the ground in order for those countries without carbon assets to develop. Taxes obtained from those countries using carbon were to go to these non-industrialized countries. Basically, it’s the old medieval concept of a sumptuary tax. It’s actually amazing how much of the climate change bible is stolen from the Roman Catholic Church”. All governments crave money and this was the excuse they used to extract even more taxes. Climate Gate was an eyeopener yet it was supessed for the greater good of the parasitic eco industry and their useful idiots mainly politicians worldwide.

  9. Dodgy Geezer permalink
    October 7, 2018 2:58 pm

    …The Hadley Centre and Met Office will find it difficult to dismiss McLean as a crank. In March 2016, he advised them of certain errors which they promptly corrected. So he’s an authority they take seriously….

    They WILL dismiss this study. They can’t do anything else, to protect their jobs.

    You will find that the study was not peer-reviewed, and not published in an authoritative journal, and, beyond comments on these pages, will never see the light of day….

    • mikewaite permalink
      October 7, 2018 3:54 pm

      It is actually mentioned as a thesis by James Cook University and can be found by googling for it .
      https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/
      The title is :
      “An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other contemporary climate issues ”
      One of the other issues in the thesis, according to the preview is an analysis of temperature correlation with reef coral bleaching which highlights previous episodes, clearly not of a permanent nature. eg this quote from the abstract :
      -“Contrary to various claims, severe coral bleaching on the GBR prior to 1998 seems likely with a probability of ~0.6 that bleaching occurred in one or more summers from 1922 to 1997, with the other methods suggesting it was most likely in the summers ending in 1983 and 1963.”-
      However, DG, some of your suspicions may not be without merit because it does not seem possible to use the links on the Abstract page to go any further.

      • Dodgy Geezer permalink
        October 7, 2018 4:12 pm

        His professor has already lost tenure. I predict that the paper will be withdrawn for vague reasons. and never heard of again….

  10. October 7, 2018 3:39 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  11. Adrian permalink
    October 7, 2018 5:17 pm

    Has anyone got the link to the thesis pdf to work?

  12. October 7, 2018 6:03 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    You would think the main stream media should take an interest in this? Monumental incompetence and no oversight/QA leads to billions missspent on climate action, could there be a bigger story today?

  13. tom0mason permalink
    October 7, 2018 6:57 pm

    HADCRUT or HadCRUD ?
    Average temperatures of the global turd?

    • tom0mason permalink
      October 7, 2018 7:24 pm

      HADCUT = Highly Unconvincing Data Confirming Unfeasible Theory

    • J C L Sharp permalink
      October 7, 2018 7:45 pm

      I’ve already made this pun (” HadCRUD”) at 11.13 this morning, but my comment, for some strange reason, is awaiting “moderation”.

      • October 7, 2018 10:08 pm

        Sorry, moderation is slow this week, as I am on hols.

        Been tramping around Hadrians Wall today!!

  14. October 7, 2018 8:17 pm

    Can’t recall exactly when it hit me – it was after 2009 and Climategate so I’ll say something like 2010 or 2011. But after Climategate settling in to my thinking at some point I said to myself, “gregole, just take a look at the temperature records, I mean, what do the thermometers say?”

    Oh my.

    Resolution to a tenth of a degree and no error bars.
    Values made up wholesale. (That’s what the capital “E” means).
    Adjustments. More adjustments. Never-ending adjustments.
    Homogenizing.
    Profoundly non-physical mathematical practices like averaging between sites separated by distance counted in miles to hundreds and even thousands of miles.
    I’ll stop. But I could go on and on.

    No, I’m not a Klimate Psyientist. But I have spent parts of my now going on 40 years as an engineer as a test engineer and there isn’t a single land record of temperatures fit for purpose. The land records to date, are footnotes to anecdotal evidence.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 8, 2018 1:01 am

      The Smithsonian’s “World Weather Records” are all land records from all of the official stations in both hemispheres. They record monthly temperatures from the 1920s through the 1930s. They were carefully used by Guy Callendar in his 1938 paper on the greenhouse effect. These records reveal that the current “normals” are not statistically warmer than the 1920s and 30s for many places.

      It’s worth adding that East Anglia CRU has destroyed many of their raw records…

      Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

      “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

  15. October 7, 2018 9:38 pm

    We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 8, 2018 1:03 am

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! ” – Upton Sinclair

  16. dennisambler permalink
    October 8, 2018 10:46 am

    I met John McLean a few years ago and have corresponded with him on many occasions. He is a serious scientist and a very nice guy.

    Other studies by him include Glaciergate, (remember that and yet they still keep going)
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2010/10/glaciergate/

    And
    mclean.ch/climate/docs/We_have_been_conned_rev2.pdf

    “We have been conned – An independent review of the IPCC”.

    A clickable index of his previous work is here at his website:

    http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.html

  17. theguvnor permalink
    October 8, 2018 1:51 pm

    Complaint sent to BBC on their biased deluge today on the release of the report on radio, TV and on-line. Not one alternative view from sceptical pundit. But that seems now to be their policy which for an ‘impartial’ public service is unacceptable.

  18. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen permalink
    October 8, 2018 4:12 pm

    Is anybody complaining to the BBC and media about current IPCC reporting? There are 3 groups in the IPCC, and WG ! (science) is just a ‘tool’ of WG 3, the policy people, where NGOs, UN selected g make policy. WGIII makes policy and uses (WG 1 provides
    the science selected by policy advisors (the green lobby to some extent) to ‘underpins ‘ the proposed policy responses. These are of course mainly financial and hugely regulatory…
    Also WG 1 scientists are selected by governments and NGOs, and all have a strong self-interest in the climate scare as a source of research funding. IPPC science is selected to feed the ‘climate’ (combatting warming by reducing ‘carbon’ (!!!) emissions agenda which has many other objectives.. I did so much research on this and kept it up to some extent via E&E. Would sign anything pointing this out. Sonja B-C

    Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
    Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
    Hull University HULL HU6 7RX; for,mer Senior Research Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex
    FORMER Editor, Energy&Environment, SAGE Publishers
    eae.sagepub.com
    Phone:(0044)1482 465421

  19. OliverK. Manuel permalink
    October 8, 2018 4:32 pm

    SSM (The Standard Solar Model) has blocked any rational understanding of Earth’s heat source and Earth’s constantly changing climate: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026250731672

  20. Oliver Manuel permalink
    October 8, 2018 4:43 pm

    The IPCC is a bad joke on the scientific community, the inevitable result of blind belief in SSM: The Standard Solar Model:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026250731672  With deep regrets,Oliver K. Manuel

    Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

    On Monday, October 8, 2018, 10:11 AM, Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen sonja.b-c@hull.ac.uk [ClimateSceptics] wrote:

     

    Is anybody complaining to the BBC and media about  current IPCC reporting? There are 3 groups in the IPCC, and WG ! (science) is   just a ‘tool’ of WG 3, the policy people,  where NGOs, UN selected g make policy. WGIII makes policy and uses (WG 1 provides the  science selected by policy advisors (the green lobby to some extent) to ‘underpins ‘ the proposed policy responses. These are of course mainly financial and hugely regulatory… Also WG 1 scientists are selected by governments and NGOs, and all have  a strong self-interest in the climate scare as a source of  research funding. IPPC science is  selected to  feed the  ‘climate’ (combatting warming by  reducing ‘carbon’ (!!!) emissions  agenda which has many other objectives..  I  did  so much research on this and kept it up to some extent via  E&E.  Would sign anything pointing this out. Sonja B-C   Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography Hull University HULL HU6 7RX;  for,mer Senior Research Fellow, SPRU, University  of Sussex FORMER Editor, Energy&Environment, SAGE Publishers eae.sagepub.com Phone:(0044)1482 465421

       

  21. Norman Page permalink
    October 8, 2018 8:30 pm

    Page,  2017  in  ” The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.” said:” This paper argued that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted.” The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme,the associated IPCC  series of reports and the entire UNFCCC circus are founded on two gross errors of scientific judgement. First  – the sample size is too small. All IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for 100 – 150 years when the currently most importantclimate controlling, largest amplitude solar activity cycles are millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomesare be too hot and fall outside of the real future world.Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond theMillennial Turning Point (MTP)  and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.This turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4. A general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650. The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers. See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488 and  an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html Here is the abstract for convenience : Here is the abstract for convenience : “ABSTRACT This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities.Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial  peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.” For the current situation and longer range forecasts see Figs 4 and 12 in the links above It would be helpful if fellow empiricists would share this comment and links to all their media and blog connections. Regards Norman Page

    . 10/8/2018 10:11 AM, Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen sonja.b-c@hull.ac.uk [ClimateSceptics] wrote: > > Is anybody complaining to the BBC and media about  current IPCC > reporting? There are 3 groups in the IPCC, and WG ! (science) is >   just a ‘tool’ of WG 3, the policy people,  where NGOs, UN selected g > make policy. WGIII makes policy and uses (WG 1 provides > > the  science selected by policy advisors (the green lobby to some > extent) to ‘underpins ‘ the proposed policy responses. These are of > course mainly financial and hugely regulatory… > > Also WG 1 scientists are selected by governments and NGOs, and all > have  a strong self-interest in the climate scare as a source of  > research funding. IPPC science is selected to  feed the  ‘climate’ > (combatting warming by  reducing ‘carbon’ (!!!) emissions  agenda > which has many other objectives..  I  did  so much research on this > and kept it up to some extent via  E&E.  Would sign anything pointing > this out. Sonja B-C > > Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen > *Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography > Hull University HULL HU6 7RX;  for,mer Senior Research Fellow, SPRU, > University  of Sussex > FORMER Editor, /Energy&Environment, /SAGE Publishers* > > *eae.sagepub.com* > > Phone:(0044)1482 465421 > > *From:*NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT [mailto:comment-reply@wordpress.com] > *Sent:* 07 October 2018 10:39 > *To:* Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen > *Subject:* [New post] 35779 > > Paul Homewood posted: ” Breitbart reports on a newly published audit > of the Hadley Centre’s Global Temperature Dataset Climate Bombshell: > Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds > Audit By James Delingpole Giuseppe Ciccia/Pacific Press/Ligh” > >

  22. Eddie Travers permalink
    October 8, 2018 9:18 pm

    “Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” So said Mark Twain – how appropriate.

  23. Vanessa permalink
    October 10, 2018 3:15 pm

    This link may interest some. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPGK6pNO0Qw&t=0s&index=29&list=WL Climate alarm has been with us for about 100 years – we should be used to it by now and able to ignore its shrieks !!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: