In my opinion, a climate change hoax smoking gun, & other related links
Want to watch climate change cultists go berserk? The following is a link to a PDF from NOAA/NASA. HEADLINE: 2014 was Warmest Year on Record
Scroll to #5 - Ranking of Record Years is Sensitive to Methodology and Coverage, Probability of warmest year NOAA 2014 ~48%, 2014 ~38%
Unless I'm missing something, NOAA & NASA titled a report based on a warmest year finding when NOAA gives it less than half likely, and NASA was 62% AGAINST. Ask the cultist what they think about that headline and the finding... Kaboom!
See, the only credible honest answer is that it was fraud, the deliberate effort to put out a false Narrative, a Big Lie.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
Related to that... 2014 Was Not the ‘Hottest Year on Record’. So Why Did NASA Claim It Was?
"the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree - or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C - several times as much."
"And the third problem, as Christopher Booker noted, is that the satellite temperature records tell a very different story from the surface temperature records quoted by NASA. This would suggest - as sceptics have been arguing for some time - that the land surface temperature data sets are untrustworthy. There are too few weather stations; too many of them are subject to the Urban Heat Island effect; and, in any case, the raw data has too often been adjusted by alarmists for reasons that appear to owe more to politics than science"
"If the statement “2014 was the hottest year on record” is untrue - and demonstrably untrue - then why are so many people who ought to know better continuing to claim otherwise?
The answer, as often where outbreaks of mass hysteria are concerned, can be found in Gustave Le Bon’s 1895 masterpiece translated in English under the title The Crowd: A Study Of The Popular Mind."
Climate Reporting’s Hot Mess
"To its credit, the Washington Post alluded to the possibly more important fact that 'rising temperatures have not kept pace with computer simulations that predicted even faster warming.'
The New York Times contributed nothing to reader enlightenment as usual, and the Associated Press committed a howler by claiming that 'nine of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1, according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego.'
This might be true if Earth’s climate were dice, where rolling a six has no effect on the odds of the next roll being a six. But climate is a continuous process of incremental change. [...]
Either NOAA’s entire temperature history is a statistical anomaly of incomprehensible, galactic proportions-or AP has peddled itself a faulty assumption. And sure enough, Mr. Grego tells me AP specifically instructed him to assume 'all years had the same probability of being ‘selected’ as one of the 10 hottest years on record.' This is akin to assuming that, because you weighed 195 pounds at some point in your life, there should be an equal chance of you weighing 195 pounds at any point in your life, even when you were a baby.'"
"The bigger problem, of course, is that evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming. One would be astonished if mankind, with its prodigious release of greenhouse gases and other activities, were not having an impact on climate. But how and how much are the crucial questions."
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming (This one is a bit long)
"In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as 'the hottest years since records began'. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 - and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the 'urban heat island effect', readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost."
And finally, something I found to be an interesting read, and one to which those who've tried to discuss or debate with Climate alarmists will relate.
Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson - Friday 25 February 2011
Some highlights from Freeman Dyson follow. The other person need not be quoted. If you've debated one you've debated them all.
"You ask me where the extra trapped heat has gone, but I do not agree with the models that say the extra trapped heat exists. I cannot answer your question because I disagree with your assumptions." <- This is important, as climate cultists often dive into the weeds, copying and pasting from their leftist sources.
"My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma."
"The most I expect is that you might listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure."
"You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing."
This last is why every rational person should question those pushing climate change dogma -> They hate you if you question. You are not just wrong in their eyes. You are "anti-science"! You are stupid! You are evil! Yet, is there anything more unscientific than demanding unquestioning acceptance of science, especially from a brand new science?