Global Cooling: A Good Story, If Only It Were True.
    By Patrick Lockerby | January 11th 2010 07:41 PM | 14 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Patrick

    Retired engineer, 60+ years young. Computer builder and programmer. Linguist specialising in language acquisition and computational linguistics....

    View Patrick's Profile
    Global Cooling: A Good Story, If Only It Were True.

    According to Daily Mail reports of 10th and 11th January 2010, we are now entering a phase of global cooling.  However, there is an old saying about newspaper reports: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

    I am not here to 'knock' the Daily Mail.  My earliest recollections of reading news stories are recollections of the Daily Mail.  I still read the Daily Mail on line and enjoy the generally high standard of reporting, so it came as something of a shock to discover that Daily Mail reporters have got their facts entirely wrong about global warming.

    "The Mini Ice Age Starts Here", says David Rose.  Er, no!  Actually, it doesn't.
    The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

    Only one scientist is actually named: Professor Mojib Latif.  As shown below, Prof. Latif most definitely does not say any such thing!

    David Rose goes on to say:
    According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

    Here is the relevant quote from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre:
    At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
    Here is a more crucial quote:
    NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”
    And now, the most crucial quote:
    NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said, “We've preserved a fair amount of
    first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the
    past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the
    winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice
    cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger
    and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt
    during the summer.”

    "Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?", asks an un-named Daily Mail reporter.

    Spoiler: the answer is NO!
    Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

    The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

    Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.


    The whole Daily Mail global cooling story is based on a misunderstanding of a scientific research published in 2008 by Prof. Latif's team.

    "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."
    Prof. Mojib Latif, as reported in The Guardian.

    Apart from the Daily Mail, the "global cooling" story has also been carried by FOXnews, the Daily Telegraph and others, and is being picked up across the web.

    Despite Prof. Latif's rebuttal, you should expect the climate change deniers to be citing the "global cooling" articles as "evidence" for a long time to come.

    Recommended for further reading:
    Of Moles and Whacking: Mojib Latif predicted two decades of cooling.

    "If your “global cooling” piece revolves around Dr. Latif, you probably have the entire story backwards"

    More on climate from the chatter_box
    Global Cooling : How Wrong Can You Get?
    Global Cooling : Beyond Parochialism
    Join The Navy : See A Nuke
    Himalayan Hype : Reading Between The Lines
    Post Glacial Eustatic Sea Level Rise
    GMST : Discovering Trends
    How To Model A Smoking Gun

    Edit: added Jan 12 2010

    A huge thank you to Kutsnob for posting a link to this article in the Netherlands, where the current extreme of cold weather is bringing out the climate change deniers in droves!
    A huge thank you also to valkhorn for linking this article to


    Nice article, good to see your articles again.
    But just to counter: 

    As in theology, one of the biggest weaknesses in public/popular science is reliance on the argument of authority. And in correcting this article, you've removed its authority.

    Another problem I think is that much confusion abounds over such close monitoring of short-term temp changes, on a monthly or seasonal basis. When it's used as an attack on global warming, it's criticized for being short-sited. And it makes sense, afterall a few months is an inadequate sample to judge global warming, just as a few people is an inadequate population sample. At the same time, such close monitoring of temperature - in the summer months in particularly - is also often used as evidence for global warming. 

    Perhaps I need some help getting some perspective of the time-span of global warming.

    Another thing that I've grown curious about - a bit after the unfolding of ClimateGate, and given the field's heavy reliance on modeling - is: what empirical evidence would be required to disprove global warming by man?

    Gerhard Adam
    At the same time, such close monitoring of temperature - in the summer months in particularly - is also often used as evidence for global warming.
    I don't know what specific incidences you might be referring to, but consider that one of the big concerns is the ice cover in the Arctic and the glaciers.  Therefore, it makes sense to consider how early temperatures go up in the spring and how long they persist throughout the summer months.  This isn't proof of global warming, but rather it is a seasonal indicator that can provide insight into what the ice cover is going to face with shorter, warmer winters.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam
    ...what empirical evidence would be required to disprove global warming by man?
    Well, first I would argue that the "by man" statement is irrelevant.  However, a good beginning is to offer an explanation about the possible consequences of the Arctic ice sheet melting.  This is clearly visible and can be tracked.

    Regarding the modeling, you're absolutely right, since no one except an expert can ever be certain about what such a model shows and where it might be wrong.  Which begs the question, because most of the people challenging such models, clearly lack the expertise and so their challenge isn't on scientific grounds, but rather a means to discredit what they perceive as a political intrusion.

    As with most of these things, they certainly have a voice in their governments and the kinds of public policy that can be enacted (and they shouldn't insult the rest of us by fantasizing that somehow they are the "weak and downtrodden").  If they don't believe the data, then don't support public policy to act on it.  It would be nice if they could be held to such a view, so that if their home gets flooded because of rising coastlines, then we could line them up and say "I told you so", but unfortunately they'll get to complain now, but they'll also be first one's criticizing the government and every other agency for not acting sooner.

    Mundus vult decipi
    Thanks for the comments, friends.

    As a follow-up to this story, here are links to more data.  The current extremes of cold in the northern hemisphere are part of an anomalous arctic pattern.  I would call it an inversion anomaly - whilst many places are colder than average, the Arctic is actually warmer than average!  And the Arctic warming is following, in the long term, a definite rising trend.

    As a direct result of global warming, the Russian government has introduced legislation to regulate shipping through its Arctic shipping route.  This is not a way for a government to raise taxes on a global warming pretext, as deniers would have it.  It's a way for a government to increase its nation's trade by taking advantage of global warming!

    older report:
    I'm sure the Russians will take advantage of having all those ice free arctic ports.  Their history since Ivan the Terrible can be called the quest for a ice free year round port.  The only one they have, which is not on a inland sea and easily cut off, is Vladivostok.  Which is on the other side of the planet from where most Russian's actually live. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Great to have you back Patrick.
    I for one am back in my running shoes.
    All the snow has melted revealing my still green grass. It doesn't snow lately, just rain. It's 3 to 8 degrees C.
    I should be complaining about how I'm sick of Winter, but it's already Spring!
    Of course, now that I've said that, I'm gonna have to dig out my shovel again...
    I don't know who are u to judge what daily mail or FOX says . First of all if you have a global warming its followed by global cooling , since theres more water higher temperatures , more clouds more relative humidity , more cloudy days more storms > colder weather , it happens every 100 years , the global warming than the global cooling , its the nature way to restart everything , CO2 can only help global cooling since trees grow up faster , they produce more oxygen afterwards , there was global warming before 1900 than there was a cooling which we all know and it was here during the both world wars than everything was average before the global warming in the 1990 that in my opinion is done and we'll see exactly 20-30 years of global cooling , than again average temperatures than again global warming etc etc , this global warming was boosted by the ozone hole but thats why we'll see mini ice age cause the stronger global warming will boost the global cooling which we'll see trough the next few decades
    And the reason why Canada didn't see any of the snow is cause of the blocking this winter and the negative NAO and the weak-moderate El Nino , but only Canada and north west USA wont see how strong this winter is , also the jet streams were pretty much south so north places were not that snowy . My point is the t2m is -4'C of this winter so far thats calculated from most of the major cities temperatures over the northern hemisphere
    i know u wont approve my comments cause ull stick to your in my opinion wrong idea of why people give so much credit to global warming , its to make money , cause all of the countries world wide will donate funds to help stop what cannot be stopped by humans cause we cannot control the weather , this is beyond anyone on this planet , humans are not doing anything to change the weather track , its just a process of the nature this global warming and cooling and to get why people do summit at Copenhagen during a snow storm u just need common sense , its cause they want money they'll do everything for it , even if its so dumb like talking about global warming while outside u get 1 inch per hour of snow . If u want to do that u do it in Rio while its 40 degrees Celsius or somewhere in the northern hemisphere cities during summer time , so you don't get laughed at . You should read some of the Joe Bastardi articles , hes not boosted by any government or some group of "scientists" that said this winter will be mild any warm all over the northern hemisphere and Washington got their average season total snowfall in one day , London and Manchester got out of salt on 2nd of January , Berlin haven't seen sun in 15 days and got snow covered every day of the winter so far , and that my friend haven't happened for almost 80-100 years , Thank You , best wishes and hope You'll stop lying to yourself soon
    Gerhard Adam
    Well L1nk, I'm sure glad you cleared that up.  With all that common sense, I'm sure the Nobel Committee is meeting, even as we speak, to figure out how to quickly get that prize in your hands. 

    Mundus vult decipi
    The three comments above may not all be from one person.  In any case, I'll repond to them separately.

    I don't know who are u to judge what daily mail or FOX says
    May I suggest you read Science : It's More Than Just Words.  That article may help to explain why I think myself competent to judge what a media reporter is getting wrong.

    than again average temperatures than again global warming etc etc
    Yes: in the long term of millions of years there have been cooling and warming cycles.  These can be long term - thousands or millions of years, or short term about 750 years.  The warming cycle we are currently experiencing has very short ups and downs within  it, but the 'downs' are far outweighed by the 'ups'.  The current global temperature trend is like inflation: if inflation drops from 15% to 1% prices - even so -  continue to rise!

    we'll see mini ice age cause the stronger global warming will boost the global cooling
    Almost correct.  Most of the Earth's surface is water, and most of the land is in the northern hemisphere.  An ice age is a period of time when substantial land areas are covered by a great thickness of ice.  Global warming could, according to some projections, trigger an ice age in the northern hemisphere - even while the Pacific and southern oceans are much warmer.

    My point is the t2m is -4'C of this winter so far thats calculated from
    most of the major cities temperatures over the northern hemisphere
    A good point: the average northern winter temperature is neither a global average nor a climatic trend.  I addressed the point of excessive focus on the northern hemisphere in my article Global Cooling : Beyond Parochialism.

    i know u wont approve my comments ...
    I welcome questions and controversial opinions.  Only spam and extremely rude comments get deleted by me.  I'll address your remarks briefly: I have a series of articles in the pipeline which may interest you.  Please do come back and check my blog from time to time.

    Humans most definitely do have an impact on their environment - frequently a detrimental one.  Check out, for example, this book written in 1874.  6,692,000,000 humans with their incessant demand for ever more energy most definitely do have an impact.  Our global consumption of energy expressed as the heat equivalent of hydrogen bombs is frightening.

    The rest of your remarks seem to focus on the recent extremes of northern-hemisphere winter season weather, rather than decades-long global climate.  In another article I have called that sort of viewpoint hemispherical parochialism.  Take a good long look at a globe:  that's a lot of warm Pacific water to balance against a relatively small area of temporary winter snow and ice.
    Okay heres what i was thinking of writing all these previous posts , YOUR DATA IS WRONG AND U ARE GOVERNMENT AND SCIENTISTS ARE LYING EVERYONE , "a screaming was heard from a city called Skopje in the Balkan Peninsula with 40 cm layer of snow"

    Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

    Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

    Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

    NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

    And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

    As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

    NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

    Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

    Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections -- some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

    Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

    Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

    Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

    It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

    For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

    Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

    It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

    That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

    Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.

    And no wonder -- imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.

    Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jive closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.” But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors, it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings.

    The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT essay, “The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The “adjustments” actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered “indisputable evidence that the ‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”

    WUWT’s editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias to be 0.5°F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. Add Smith’s selection bias to the mix and poof – actual warming completely disappears!

    Yet believe it or not, the manipulation does not stop there.

    GISS – Garbage In / Globaloney Out

    The scientists at NASA’s GISS are widely considered to be the world’s leading researchers into atmospheric and climate changes. And their Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports.

    In creating its widely disseminated maps and charts, the program merges station readings collected from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with GHCN and USHCN data from NOAA.

    It then puts the merged data through a few “adjustments” of its own.

    First, it further “homogenizes” stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA) changing “the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.” Of course, the reduced number of stations will have the same effect on GISS’s UHI correction as it did on NOAA’s discontinuity homogenization – the creation of artificial warming.

    Furthermore, in his communications with me, Smith cited boatloads of problems and errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task, ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as “rural” to the “correction” having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when it meant to decrease or vice-versa.

    And according to NASA, “If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped.”

    However, Smith points out that a dropped record may be “from a location that has existed for 100 years.” For instance, if an aging piece of equipment gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to “just get tossed out.”

    But the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is flattened and stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000 boxes using 1,500 stations.

    Here’s NASA’s solution:

    For each grid box, the stations within that grid box and also any station within 1200km of the center of that box are combined using the reference station method.

    Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious.

    So it’s no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing in actual practice. He offered me Hawaii for starters. It seems that all of the Aloha State’s surviving stations reside in major airports. Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is what’s used to “infill” the surrounding “empty” Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in effect, you have “jet airport tarmacs ‘standing in’ for temperature over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole.”

    An isolated problem? Hardly, reports Smith.

    From KUSI’s Global Warming: The Other Side:
    “There’s a wonderful baseline for Bolivia -- a very high mountainous country -- right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map, you’ll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia [boxed in blue]. But how do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven’t measured the temperature for 20 years?”

    Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle.

    Remember that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose: “To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south.”

    Pretty slick, huh?

    And those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming...

    ...And convince you that it’s your fault.

    Government and Intergovernmental Agencies -- Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out

    Smith attributes up to 3°F (more in some places) of added “warming trend” between NOAA’s data adjustment and GIStemp processing.

    That’s over twice last century’s reported warming.

    And yet, not only are NOAA’s bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006 annual State of the Climate in 2005 [PDF]: “Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year on record.”

    And as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years.

    Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data.

    And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? It's especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record.

    So how do alarmists reconcile one government center reporting 2009 as tied for second while another had it tied for fifth? If you’re WaPo’s Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to “different data analysis methods” before adjudicating both NASA and NOAA innocent of any impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didn’t do it.

    Earth to Andrew: “Different data analysis methods”? Try replacing “analysis” with “manipulation,” and ye shall find enlightenment. More importantly, does the explicit fact that since the drastically divergent results of both “methods” can’t be right, both are immediately suspect somehow elude you?

    But by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists’ bible: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report.

    And wrong data begets wrong reports, which – particularly in this case – begets dreadfully wrong policy.

    It’s High Time We Investigated the Investigators

    The final report will be made public shortly, and it will be available at the websites of both report-supporter Science and Public Policy Institute and Joe D’Aleo’s own ICECAP. As they’ve both been tremendously helpful over the past few days, I’ll trust in the opinions I’ve received from the report’s architects to sum up.

    This from the meteorologist:
    The biggest gaps and greatest uncertainties are in high latitude areas where the data centers say they 'find' the greatest warming (and thus which contribute the most to their global anomalies). Add to that no adjustment for urban growth and land use changes (even as the world's population increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people) [in the NOAA data] and questionable methodology for computing the historical record that very often cools off the early record and you have surface based data sets so seriously flawed, they can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment or decision making by the administration, congress or the EPA.

    Roger Pielke Sr. has suggested: “...that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.” I endorse that suggestion.
    Certainly, all rational thinkers agree. Perhaps even the mainstream media, most of whom have hitherto mistakenly dismissed Climategate as a uniquely British problem, will now wake up and demand such an investigation.

    And this from the computer expert:
    That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias. What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3 degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, and applies here too.
    Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.”

    And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.

    Gerhard Adam
    Hmmm .. did I miss "grassy knoll" in there someplace?
    Mundus vult decipi
    sorry in the title i was thinking about "YOUR GOVERNMENT" not "you are"