posted June 08, 2015 12:20 PM            

Of course they would. In fact, the agenda-driven, politically saturated science behind the global warming scare demands that they do.

The paper, published in Science magazine and written by a team from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, claims the missing heat was there all the time. It was merely hidden from view by "data biases."

Yes, there are biases at work here, but not the ones the NOAA paper is referring to.

To arrive at the conclusion they were surely looking for, the NOAA researchers put more weight on some parts of the temperature record while dismissing the importance of others. Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller reports that the "new climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years."

In the NOAA scientists' words, they "updated" and "corrected" the record.

But some might say what they really did was torture the data.

Climate expert Fred Singer simply wrote "don't believe it."

"The pause is real," he said, "and in all other data sets."

Climate scientists Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen and Paul C. Knappenberger say the NOAA researchers were "desperate" and the "main claim" that "they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious." The NOAA's treatment of the data, they say, "guaranteed to create a warming trend."

Piers Forster, a University of Leeds climate change professor, has a response similar to Singer's. He told Phys.org that the United Nations' global warming report is based on several data sets, not just NOAA's alone.

"Even with the corrections in this study, the observed warming has not been as large as predicted by models. Other global datasets, even when corrected for missing Arctic data, still show a decreased trend since 1998," said Forster.

"I still don't think this study will be the last word on this complex subject."

Naturally the NOAA's paper is getting extra attention. It fits the media narrative.

posted June 10, 2015 10:07 AM            

They're convicted by words from their own lying mouths.

Kyoto, the IPCC and every effort to change energy sources....and TAX fossil fuels, is not about saving the planet from warming.

It's a grubby little Marxist, Socialist, Progressive plan to redistribute wealth.

posted June 10, 2015 05:01 PM            

Bull!

O'Bomber has done everything he can to close down about 50% of American fossil fuel energy. On top of that, he's cancelled...illegally...permits to drill for oil and gas on federal property. AND this little Marxist jerk is making the transportation of oil from Canada more expensive by refusing to let the Keystone Pipeline go through.

Of course, it's just a mere coincidence that his a-hole buddy, Warren "The Tax Cheat" Buffett owns major interests in those railroads and rail cars which are being used now to transport that Canadian oil to refineries in Texas.

So I don't buy a word of O'Bomber's bullshiiite.

Further, Solar and Wind Generators are not going to ever take up the slack in energy production if fossil fuels get taken down by O'Bomber and his merry little Marxist comrades.

It's amazing there's still anyone who believes a word this lying Marxist twit has to say.

posted June 11, 2015 11:50 AM            

Change your premise about Man Made Global Warming?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Change/adjust your data!

Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases ‘pause’ in warming
Maxim Lott
June 10, 2015

Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.

But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.

“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.

And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.

“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”

The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures.

Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys – floatation devices that sit in the water for years.

The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the world’s oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships’ recordings of nighttime air temperatures.

The paper came out last week, and there has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the adjusted data vary from other independent measurements.

First, it disagrees with the readings of more than 3,000 “ARGO buoys,” which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists view their data as the most reliable.

The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic.

In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.”

Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments.

The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data.

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

“We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said.

Karl said satellite data also have issues, including “orbital decay, diurnal sampling, instrument calibration target temperatures and more.”

Spencer said he agreed that those are issues, but they are less problematic than using data from thousands of ships and buoys. He added that there are a couple of satellites monitoring temperature at any given time, and that they are used to check each other.

Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.

Some climate scientists applaud Karl’s adjustments and say they debunk the idea that the Earth has stopped warming.

“[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com

Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper.

“I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.”