I Wonder What They Are Afraid Of?

Posted: April 27, 2015 by oldbrew in Accountability, data, methodology
Tags:

.
.
Usual response: never mind the data, get the ‘D’ word into a headline!

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

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…

View original post 311 more words

Comments
  1. Jaime says:

    Bob Ward engaging his usual hysterical response to anything which does not unquestionably accept the reality of CAGW, i.e. accusing GWPF of sowing doubt about the global surface temperature record ahead of Paris. Very ideationally conspiracist. He conveniently forgets that the doubt has already been well and truly sown and that, if anything, this GWPF study seeks to clarify whether (or not) there is reasonable cause to mistrust the integrity and accuracy of the surface temperature record.

  2. oldbrew says:

    ‘The surface temperature record’ is a term that has no fixed meaning any more.

    Does it mean the originally recorded data, or the ‘adjusted’ data, and if the latter is it the most recent adjustment, or one(s) yet to be made?

    Example of how climate history is being re-written…
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/ncdc-hiding-the-decline-in-us-winter-temperature/

  3. hunter says:

    Ward and the other professional climate hype promoters have a great deal of money to lose if their fear mongering falls apart. The last thing that the professional climate hustlers want is a full and fair review of their claims.
    As I understand it, the UK will soon make it a thought crime to discuss Islam in ways not approved of by Moslems. Climate will be the next thought crime, if the Bob Wards of the world have their way.

  4. craigm350 says:

    @Jaime on April 27, 2015 at 3:41 pm
    accusing GWPF of sowing doubt about the global surface temperature record ahead of Paris. Very ideationally conspiracist. 

    Conversely we could accuse them in relation to the stream of hype seemingly being used to sow doubt about perfectly natural climate fluctuations and events to create a consensus ahead of Paris.

  5. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you The Independent!
    By your act of publishing such a piece you reveal that this issue is not ‘settled’, and that controversy abounds in the ‘science’.

    As Oscar Wilde, the poet and writer said —
    “There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about.”

  6. michael hart says:

    Funny thing about the BBC, Independent, Guardian, etc is that they sometimes appear to think that the GWPF invented skepticism. As if they believe skeptics are paid by faceless enemies, and that skeptics will disappear if they can smite Lawson and the GWPF hard enough.

    They really just don’t get it yet.

  7. kuhnkat says:

    Love the way they only mention the background of the Head rather than the others who have more relevant experience!!

  8. tom0mason says:

    Jaime,

    From what you have written, Bob Ward fails to understand that it is the duty of science and scientist to question all. That includes reviewing theory, methods, and measurements no matter how accepted (by the consensus) they have become.
    Real progress in scientific endeavors happen because of curiosity, vision, and skepticism.

  9. oldbrew says:

    ‘A lot of people will be closely scrutinizing this project.’

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042715-749840-scientists-to-check-global-warming-climate-change-temperature-data.htm

  10. c777 says:

    O/T, but energy related…..

    “European MetOp satellites have been monitoring aerosols blasted into the atmosphere by Chile’s Calbuco volcano on April 22nd. This 5-day movie shows a plume of sulfur dioxide spreading east from Chile to Brazil”

    http://spaceweather.com/

    A vast plume of sulphur dioxide spreading across the South Altantic?

    I’ll wager there is one hell of a lot more Sulphur Dioxode in that plume than the entire Worlds Coal fired plants produce for a very significant period of time indeed.
    Considering modern ones scrub most of it out.

  11. graphicconception says:

    Surely the “Precautionary Principle” applies.

    Better to check and find everything OK than not to check and find that it was wrong all the time.