Tuesday, 30 September 2014

ACT Government supports Killing Climate Deniers.

Aspen Island
According to Section 31 of the Crimes Act
(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly, and knowing its contents, sends or delivers, or directly or indirectly causes to be received, any document threatening to kill or inflict bodily harm on any person is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
The ACT Government has just issued such a document. In the ACT Government's  2015 ACT Arts Fund successful applicants they list:
  • Aspen Island Theatre Company: $18,793 to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, ‘Kill Climate Deniers’.

The title of the theatre work - Kill Climate Deniers - could be considered an incitement to commit the crime of murder. Persons of Interest: ACT Government and the  Aspen Island Theatre Company.

Aspen Island is a man-made island on a man-made lake in a man-made capital city. This is all real. However - Man-made Global Warming is a computer generated hoax. That makes this blogger a man-made global warming denier.  But not a climate denier.

What a stupid term!

Who would deny climate?  What is Climate?

From Bob Carter's TAXING AIR:

What is climate?

Climate is the long term average of the weather, and it shapes our lives.
We all live with the weather every day.Thus we understand intuitively what weather is, and that it is above all changeable. Climate is simply the annually recurring patterns of weather, averaged over the longer term. 
Bob also covers the use of the word "denier"
Perjorative name-calling is the stuff of politics, not science. 
It is the mark of a scientific debate that participants confine their discussion to unemotional examination of the factual and theoretical material in hand. How can it be, then, that virtually every public discussion of the global warming problem involves the use of perjorative, ad hominem terms such as climate sceptic, climate denier, contrarian, rejectionist, obscurantist, confusionist or flat-Earther; and in description of those who hold the opposing point of view — climate alarmist, climatist or warmaholic. These terms range from descriptive (alarmist) through amusing (warmaholic) and silly (sceptic) to deliberately offensive (denier) 
Spooner: From Taxing Air

Surely the Alarmists were denying climate (change) when they created the fraudulent hockey stick graph. They tried to suppress the MWP and deny the LIA. They tried to deny climate. They being, inter alia, the ClimateGate CRU and the IPCC "scientists."

Jennifer Marohasy has shown (link) how the Bureau of Meteorology has tried to alter the temperature data; they tried to deny a cooling climate by warming (or homogenising) old data.

Perhaps, if the Aspen Island Theatre company wants to aim their barbs at Climate deniers, they could set their sights on the ClimateGate CRU, the IPCC "scientists" and the Bureau of Meteorology.

H/t Warwick Hughes and Don Aitken

Monday, 29 September 2014

Wind Turbine Noise Intolerable

A study by Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamsek and Colin Hansen from the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Adelaide on:

Waterloo Wind Farm (Source)
arrived at this conclusion:

Therefore, the results show that there is a low frequency noise problem associated with the
Waterloo wind farm. Therefore, it is extremely important that further investigation is carried out at
this wind farm in order to determine the source of the low frequency noise and to develop
mitigation technologies. In addition, further research is necessary to establish the long‐term effects of low frequency noise and infrasound on the residents at Waterloo. This research should include health monitoring and sleep studies with simultaneous noise and vibration measurements.

Shellie Correia, on her blog "Mothers Against Wind Turbines" writes that "noise levels are intolerable: (LINK)
This report by the above authors describes the results of their concurrent full spectrum acoustic monitoring conducted at a number of homes located between 2 km out to nearly 10km from the Waterloo Wind Development. This monitoring was independent of the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) and was requested by Mrs Mary Morris and other concerned residents in the Waterloo district. The monitoring occurred during the period of the South Australian EPA Acoustic Survey, conducted in mid 2013. 
The results in this independent survey as well as the conclusions are in marked contrast to the results and conclusions of the SA EPA Acoustic Survey report, and reinforce the Waubra Foundation’s opinion expressed at the time the initial SA EPA report was released that there were serious problems with the methodology used by the SA EPA in its acoustic survey at Waterloo. This report provides further evidence that the current SA EPA Wind Farm Noise Guidelines do not protect the health and sleep of the neighbours to these wind developments, out to nearly 10km from the closest wind turbine, because they do not regulate the acoustic emissions to protect health, and most importantly, the sleep of the neighbours.
H/t John Droz Jr 

Monday, 22 September 2014

Communists coming out of the Green Closet.

Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze
Christopher Monckton is presently in Australia. Previously he has said: (link - WUWT)
So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
Patrick Moore who will soon visit Australia,  co-founder of Greenpeace, left the Green Movement when it was infiltrated by communists: (link)
The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. 
Progressives are very resilient, so when Soviet communism finally collapsed after 70 years of world wide tyranny, progressives and liberal Democrats pushed the existential green movement to the forefront, which was in reality the same old exhausted red communism in a new disguise. 
The "Green" Movement tried to disguise their "Red" Socialist/Communist ideas, however, now they are coming out of the closet.

The New York "Climate" March, as reported by the Blaze had socialists elements spread through it. (link)
Dozens of signs denouncing capitalism were spotted at the demonstration, often held by self-proclaimed socialists.
“Capitalism is destroying the planet,” a sticker on one woman’s shirt read, “We need revolution, nothing less.”
Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze

Members of the Socialists Workers Party also manned a table, passing out flyers attempting to make “the case for ecosocialism.” 

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Study Reaffirms Medieval Global Warming

You always hear about the middle ages being a warm time period, but exactly how warm were they? 

Listen to guest speaker Craig Idso while he discusses this topic.
"Scientific Studies have shown that temperatures were significantly warmer about a thousand years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere did not cause that warming and evidence suggests temperatures of the current warm period have nothing to do with the modern rise in CO2. There is absolutely nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Earth's current climate."
Short Youtube:

The True Science Deniers

Sks Trend - RSS 1997 to date
Sceptics are often called "Climate Change Deniers." But we KNOW that climate changes. It always has. By suppressing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the Alarmists tried to pretend that climate hadn't changed for 1000 or more years.

WHY did they lie?

Surely their lie, their reliance on the flawed "Hockey Stick" graph, was unscientific.

The data sets used by the Alarmists show no warming for at least 18 years. The Alarmists at first denied the hiatus and then found 52 different excuses (link) to try to explain the reason for the lack of warming.

Although they were aware of the hiatus in global warming, the IPCC, in their latest Assessment Report, strangely and some would say unscientifically upgraded their gloom prediction from 90% to 95% (Link)

As Climatologist Judith Curry wrote: (link)
'How did they miss the fact that the pause is the most important issue in the public debate on climate science, for well over a year now?' 
“The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible.”

And THEY call US deniers?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has joined the debate. (link) Addressing POTUS Obama and his "science" team led by John Holdren, he said:
“The reality is right now we’ve got an administration in the Obama administration that are science deniers when it comes to harnessing America’s energy resources and potential to create good-paying jobs for our economy and for our future."
The Alarmists, the Global Warming Nazis, they are the true deniers.

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Flannery's Fools - Useless Tools.

Flannery's Fools, AKA The Climate Council need counselling. They have issued an Alarmist report:

Climate Change and Coastal Flooding

Flannery examining the flooding ocean.
Perhaps they have been caught napping,

According to the National Geographic, itself a warmist organisation: (link)

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change: 
Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space. 
Melting of glaciers and polar ice caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. But in the winter, snows, made primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in runoff versus evaporation for the ocean, causing sea levels to rise. 
Ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with glaciers and the ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Moreover, higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.
Let's examine these three causes of sea level rise:

Thermal Expansion

As there has been no global warming for 18 years, this cannot be a factor.

Melting of Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps

A check will find that most glaciers have stopped retreating with many advancing. (Link

Polar Ice is also increasing. Latest data show that Arctic Sea Ice is getting thicker and Antarctic sea ice continues to expand (link) See also "our" ABC - link

Ice Loss Greenland and West Antarctica

As more and more real world evidence disproves the Man Made climate change hoax, Alarmists, like the Climate Council come out with more and more Alarm. This only makes them more and more comical.

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Climate scare is the real threat to civilization.

Tom Harris and Bob Carter, in a piece for the NY Post have addressed a series of films released by Leo DiCaprio about the so-called "climate crisis."

Forget Leo. He is just spruiking the hot air issued by the Alarmists.

What Tom and Bob have to say answers all the Alarmists.

They say:

  • It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.
  • Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
  • And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.
  • Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
And lists these facts:

  •  According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
  • Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
  •  Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
  •  A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
Read more at the NY Post - HERE

Monday, 15 September 2014

Is the Australian Temperature record Accurate?

Opinion: Anthony Cox

Dr Marohasy
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] prepares the Australian temperature record. This record is called Australian Climate Observations Reference Network–Surface Air Temperature dataset (known as ACORN-SAT, or ACORN).

ACORN is prepared by the BOM from readings of temperature from sites around Australia. These readings are the raw data.

Recently a group of researchers including Dr Jennifer Marohasy, have questioned the accuracy and reliability of ACORN because the final temperatures which form ACORN differ from the raw data. Dr Marohasy has found that the raw data has been adjusted or homogenised by the BOM so that warming appears where no warming or less warming was shown by the raw data.

Sometimes there is a valid reason for adjusting raw temperature data. In his 1996 thesis Simon Torok analysed the temperature sites around Australia and found a number of sites which required adjustments. These sites needed an adjustment because there was a discontinuity in the data. A discontinuity could be either a gap in the data where for some reason the data was stopped, or there was a fluctuation in the data which was inconsistent with what could be expected from the climate.

Torok provided some amusing and typically Australian examples of discontinuities such as Cockatoos stealing or destroying the thermometers and their screen and a suspicion that unusual hot records at a site were due to the site recorder increasing the temperature so his council worker friends could have the day off with pay.

A common reason for an unusual temperature is a move in the position of the thermometer.

These potential reasons for adjusting the temperature are called metadata. It is crucial that adjustments have some metadata reason to justify them and most importantly that the adjustment not increase or alter the trend in the raw data.

However it seems that adjustments at several sites have occurred without genuine evidence in the metadata about a discontinuity in the raw data.

In the analysis of the ACORN records compared with the raw data Dr Marohasy and the research group have found adjustments which increase or even create a warming temperature trend without any support from the metadata.

For instance at Bourke a long temperature record of over 100 years going back to 1880 has effectively been truncated to 2000. The researchers discovered the raw data showed an Australian maximum temperature record of 51.7ºC on 3rd January 1909. This record is no longer used by BOM. 

Overall Bourke raw data show a cooling maximum temperature trend from 1880 of 1.7ºC per century. After adjustment ACORN at Bourke shows a slight warming temperature trend. This change of maximum temperature trend has a great effect on the whole of Australia’s temperature record. The BOM has offered no particular reason for these adjustments.

In the Newcastle region the temperature site at Williamtown also shows a marked difference between raw minimum temperature data and the ACORN temperature after homogenisation by BOM.

Researcher Ken Stewart has shown that adjusting the minimum temperature data can also affect
the overall temperature trend. Stewart’s research shows a consistent warming bias for the minimum temperature over all ACORN sites in Australia. This is uncontroversial with BOM head scientist Dr Blair Trewin conceding:
“negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do"

In the case of Rutherglen because the BOM has decreased the minimum temperature backwards from 1973 to 1913 the difference between the raw data and the adjusted data in 1913 is 1.8C. BOM has said this was justified because the thermometer site at Rutherglen was moved. 
However, retired
natural resources scientist Dr Bill Johnston, who worked at Rutherglen says that no evidence of a site move at Rutherglen has been provided by BOM.

Government policy is based on climate data which needs to be reliable and this includes temperature records. If well-credentialed amateurs have revealed some possible faults with the temperature record then there is an obligation on government departments such as the BOM, which advise and determine government policy, to consider those possible faults in an open and transparent manner

Sunday, 14 September 2014

Connecting the Climate Dots

Certain Temperature and CO2 Gradients Were Required For IPCC >90% Human Caused Conclusion

Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Source: SPPI
The complex nature of the climate system makes connecting dots very difficult. 

However, every child knows the picture doesn’t emerge until you do. In climate science connecting dots is complicated by the dominance of individual climate science specialists in government and on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They control and produce official science. It is a controlled and deliberate example of E. R Beadle’s observation that,
 “Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.”   

Usually, the climate science dots don’t connect because of illogical assumptions and inadequate or manipulated data.  Inaccurate predictions are the manifestation of the problems. It is time to re-examine the larger picture, to look at apparently incongruent issues, such as the 2007 IPCC claim that >90 percent of the global warming since approximately 1950 is due to human CO2. It is illogical on its face. The claim only holds with the gradient they created for temperature and CO2 curves.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).

Why would such a minute fraction of an enormous system suddenly have such a huge influence in the mid 1950s? The claim amounts to a very large change in a decade. Why would a fractional increase in atmospheric CO2 cause the change, when the temperature increase from doubling or tripling CO2 concentration, is fractional? How can there be such certainty, when the annual human portion of atmospheric CO2 figures, produced by the IPCC, is within the error range of two natural sources, oceans and rotting vegetation? Besides, how are the figures so certain, when Antarctica, a massive continent with enormous influence on global temperature, is omitted? Consider, alone, the change in total Earth albedo triggered by a poleward, extension of the sea ice by a couple of degrees of latitude. Over a century ago, speculation suggested a 10° latitude expansion of that ice may have triggered the last Ice Age.

Adjusting the Historic Record

In an apparently disconnected dot, national weather agencies are ‘adjusting’ the historic temperature record. Why? In every case, the temperature record is adjusted to lower historic temperatures. The apparent answer is to achieve a specific result. It is part of a pattern the IPCC created when they chose to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming. Every move involved ‘proving’, today is the warmest in history and temperatures and CO2 levels have risen significantly since pre-industrial times.

Results of adjustments for New Zealand, illustrated in Figure 1, triggered a lawsuit in New Zealand.

Similar adjustments by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) were given headlines with Jennifer Marohasy’s revelations. There is little or no valid reason for making these adjustments, as we learned from the BOM response.

“The BOM has ignored or circumvented all these, refusing to explain why individual stations were adjusted in detail.”

Why did the BOM refuse to provide answers? Why do all the changes follow the same pattern of creating an increase in the temperature gradient? The answer appears to be inferred in this statement.

The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so. Measuring the duration of the hiatus has implications for determining if the underlying trend has changed, and for evaluating climate models.

Another clue is in Judith Curry’s observation,

The key challenge is this:  convincing attribution of ‘more than half’ of the recent warming to humans requires understanding natural variability and rejecting natural variability as a predominant explanation for the overall century scale warming and also the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.  Global climate models and tree ring based proxy reconstructions are not fit for this purpose.

Part of the IPCC claim results from the limited definition of climate change to human causes, created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Most of the claim is a result of the database created to prove the hypothesis. The claim is only valid because of the gradients the IPCC and its authors established for temperature and CO2. The >90 percent, due to humans claim, is invalid without the increased gradient.

It Has Gone On From The Start

These manipulations of curves and gradients began with the need to show pre-industrial temperatures and CO2 levels were lower than today. After that they needed to create a constantly increasing, significant, upward trend of temperature and CO2. The troublesome Figure 7c in the 1990 IPCC Report that showed a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) warmer than today, was dealt with by the infamous “hockey stick”. Using tree rings alone, their models showed declining temperatures in the 20th century. They hid the decline by unscientifically tacking on a modern temperature record produced by Phil Jones. This record, of which Jones subsequently lost the original data, has an error range of ±33%. Despite this they claimed the increase was beyond normal.

Those who adjusted the temperature curves were put under increasing pressure with the advent of satellite measures around the year 2000. They were attacked almost immediately as unreliable, but are now considered a better measure because they cover more of the globe than surface stations. What appears to be deliberate inflation of temperatures, especially by HadCRUT and NASA GISS prior to 2000, was now challenged. A different approach was required, hence the shift to lowering the historic temperature record. If you don’t think such coordinated strategy is possible, consider the planned series of mini-films prepared by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), prior to the Climate Summit in New York, September 23. If you have the stomach for it, you can watch the series for yourself.

The first challenge was to establish a low pre-industrial level of CO2. It was more important than temperature because warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) was an accepted climatological trend. Climatologists became aware of the selection of CO2 data to establish a low pre-industrial level with publication of Tom Wigley’s 1983 article “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level” in Climatic Change.  Wigley established the low pre-industrial level at 270 ppm in the climate science community. It paralleled Callendar’s narrow selection of the same data. Both set the required low pre-industrial level.

Zbigniew Jaworowski told a US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing.
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv.

Jaworowski’s research was subsequently confirmed by the work of Ernst-Georg Beck. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great deal and validated their findings. In a devastating conclusion Beck states,

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

So the pre-industrial level is actually some 65 ppm (335 – 270)  higher than the level used in IPCC computer models. No wonder they are consistently wrong.

Some argue that the 65 ppm higher level is wrong because it implies the pre-industrial ocean temperature was approximately the same as today. A warmer ocean absorbs more CO2 so there should be more CO2 in the atmosphere This supposedly contradicts the argument that the world has warmed since the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). It doesn’t, it contradicts the incorrect assumption that CO2 is the major cause of the warming since pre-industrial times; even the IPCC don’t make that claim. It also assumes the climate sensitivity, that is how much temperature increase occurs with increasing CO2, is much greater than claimed. In fact, the climate sensitivity level has consistently reduced and is close to approximating zero. The real question is, how can it be positive if, as is the case in every single record of any duration for any time period, temperature increases before CO2?

The importance of Beck’s work is measured by the fierce and personal level of the attacks. As I wrote in my obituary,  

I was flattered when he asked me to review one of his early papers on the historic pattern of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship to global warming. I was struck by the precision, detail and perceptiveness of his work and urged its publication. I also warned him about the personal attacks and unscientific challenges he could expect. On 6 November 2009 he wrote to me, “In Germany the situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition.” Fortunately, he was not deterred. His friend Edgar Gartner explained Ernst’s contribution in his obituary. “Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.” (This is translated from German).

Attacks came, as expected, from AGW proponents, but some of the nastier and narrower attacks were from some professing to be skeptics. Skepticism is critical, but a growing trend among climate skeptics is attacks with greater and usually unjustified vigor against those who question skeptical claims. Often, they carve out a skeptical position and consider it their property and sacrosanct, only they know and understand. They become as dogmatic as those they claim to challenge. There is no place for ego in science. As Mary McCarthy said, “In science, all facts, no matter how trivial or banal, enjoy democratic equality.”

Most of my research has involved historical sources and data. It also involved comparing historic records against modern data. It must all be considered and used with extreme care and awareness of the limitations.  The 19th century CO2 data has many traits that make it a reasonably reliable source for approximating what was going on with CO2 during that century. Beck examined and detailed each record with what his friend described as, his “immense specialized knowledge and methodical severity…” Here are some reasons for the validity of Beck’s work on the 19th century data as representative of atmospheric CO2 levels.

·      Mostly scientists produced the data, although they were then, like Darwin, called naturalists.
·      They were trying to determine the percentage of gases in the atmosphere following Priestley’s work on oxygen at the end of the 18th century. The first measures of CO2 began in 1812.
·      The objective was pure scientific discovery, with no thought to future concerns about CO2 as a so-called greenhouse gas. This, in direct contrast to the deliberately structured and manipulated instruments and analysis of Mauna Loa.
·      The sites and distribution are comparable to those for temperature for the 19th century and early 20th century.
·      My experience is that the work of historic record keepers is superior in dedication to detail and integrity of modern, especially government, keepers. Anthony Watts’ study of modern US weather stations underscores this.
·      The pattern of the plotted data is similar to other unmodified CO2 records. Figure 3 is very informative because it contrasts the much-modified artificially smooth ice core record with atmospheric levels of CO2 from stomata measures.
Figure 3 

·      There is an obsession with misrepresenting CO2 distribution in the atmosphere. It extends from the IPCC claim that it is evenly distributed to the elimination of variability in the layer of air near the ground. Extremes are removed with no justification and so much data eliminated that the actual data finally used, bears little or no resemblance to the raw data or reality.

Those proving the AGW hypothesis had to produce a smooth, constantly increasing curve, from three sources. They linked the ice core record to the 19th century data to the Mauna Loa measures. Ernst-Georg Beck put them together, (Figure 4), showing how it could only be done with unjustified assumptions.

Figure 4

Variability is critical but a 70-year smoothing average applied to the ice core record eliminated extreme readings and a great deal of information. It means the results are not meaningfully comparable to the short Mauna Loa record. It is made worse as that record is also smoothed because  readings vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day; just like the 19th century data. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing makes the loss even greater. The radiative effect of greenhouse gases doesn’t work to an average. It is in effect all the time and throughout the entire atmospheric column.

The End Justifies The Means

The IPCC was set up to prove a very narrow hypothesis. The goal was to show human produced CO2 was primarily responsible for global warming. Their claim that >90 of warming from 1950 to the present is due to human CO2, is only valid with the gradients of the temperature and CO2 curves they created. The critical portion of this agenda was to show human CO2 was causing temperature increase in a rapidly increasing, unnatural, trend. Wherever the historic data did not fit they adjusted it. When they had control of modern data they adjusted it. Each time they were thwarted, such as with the advent of satellite temperature data, they introduced another ‘adjustment’. Only a few are capable of connecting all the dots, when done, the pattern of activities revealed is a grim picture of manipulating slope and gradient of temperature and CO2 to prove the AGW hypothesis.