Jan
Defamatory? So sue me, Gavin. I triple dog dare you.
Gavin Schmidt
Earlier this month we brought you the story regarding the outrageous dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations in one year. Now we bring you a follow up story that shows this controversy is not going to go away. We’ve now learned that there has been more shameful cherry picking of temperature stations in Canada where, since the 1970s, the number of local stations included in the U.S. government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database has dropped from 600 stations to only 35 stations today. And, the really shocking statistic is that the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is taking data from only one of 100 reliable weather stations for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle, to be used by climatologists to calculate global average temperatures.
That solitary station — Eureka, on Ellesmere Island — has been entered in the 2009 (NOAA) database to measure the temperature for the Canadian portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude, a vast area larger than the size of the whole of Western Europe.
NOAA is responsible for compiling an important database of historical surface temperatures used by the world’s climate scientists. NOAA is sent readings from thousands of local weather stations across the planet by the World Meteorological Organization, which receives temperatures from national governments around the world.
But what is even more embarrassing for the IPCC, after a week where embarrassments haven’t stopped snowing them under, is that by ignoring the other 99 temperature measuring stations kept in good order by the Canadian government, the IPPC is depriving itself of essential data in the one key area of the planet that they need to study most carefully to find proof of man made global warming.
The Vancouver Sun quotes Sujata Raisinghani, a spokesperson for Environment Canada, in an e-mail to Canwest News Service on Friday, who said:
“Missing observations in an area where the climate is expected to respond more quickly to external influences, such as the Arctic, may, however, result in underestimates of the amount of climatic change. The Arctic is expected to warm more quickly than other parts of the globe as a result of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, if stations are missing in the Arctic, the Arctic contribution to warming will be underestimated.”
As reported in climategate.com weeks before the story hit the mainstream news, two American researchers, Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith (‘Chiefio’), a computer programmer, proved that scientists at NOAA and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are deliberately dropping weather stations from the data, particularly stations in colder locations such as northern Canada.
As shocking as this seems, it’s stories like this that are being brought to you by Internet blogs such as climategate.com and a few British newspapers. It seems that foreign journalists and web users find a way to get the scoops that the American news media can’t or won’t report.
As our previous story shows, this “trick” is one way that alarmist climatologists have been hyping up climate anxiety to world politicians. This story substantiates claims of cherry-picking records to produce warmer-than-actual mean temperature trends. Ironically, it also means that world governments are being deprived of important data that could help, rather than hinder their quest to prove man made climate change (AGW).
On Friday, Gavin Schmidt, a senior alarmist climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denied that he and other scientists had cherry-picked the data to manipulate the outcome.
“The idea that we’re fraudulently cutting out stations is appallingly defamatory and ignorant,” he said.
Well, Gavin, you would say that, wouldn’t you? So, I say back to you, if you feel my reporting is “defamatory and ignorant,” then put up or shut up; please feel free to file suit, but make sure you spell my name right: there’s an apostrophe in O’Sullivan.
The full story, by the Vancouver Sun, can be found here.
Note: To our non-American readers, explanation of “triple dog dare you.”
Hat tip to our reader: Martin Cregg-Guinan.
Possibly related posts:
Is it not absolute defence to any defamation claim to prove that the statement is substantially true on preponderance of evidence; so, the only danger from “them” is their hot air?
Yes, Igor – that’s exactly where I’m coming from- anyone with any knowledge of the law understands this – it will back fire embarrassingly on these crooks.
What is it about prematurely-balding men, with Teutonic-sounding names and quasi-evolved, peach fuzz goatees, that makes them want to diddle so much with ze numbers?
Oh yeah – weren’t Nuremberg’s successful prosecutions largely predicated on meticulous, but ultimately self-incriminating, record keeping?
[...] Een ander artikel beschrijft dat de dataselectie, zoals geconstateerd in Rusland, ook in Canada heeft plaatsgevonden. De koudecentra boven de poolcirkel werden geschrapt en alleen de gegevens van weerstations in warmere, stedelijke gebieden werden gebruikt. [...]