One of the leading collators of satellite temperature data, Dr. Roy Spencer, has been kicked off Google Adsense for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move ‘demonetises’ Dr. Spencer’s widely consulted monthly update page by removing all Google-supplied advertising. The former NASA climate scientist collects raw data every month from NASA satellites and provides an accurate monthly guide to warming and cooling temperature trends.
Dr. Spencer, who states that he believes most global warming “is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions” has collated data from NASA satellites for 43 years. Along with his colleague, the atmospheric scientist Professor John Christy, he has received awards for his work from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. Commenting on Google’s “unreliable and harmful claims” suggestion, Dr. Spencer notes: “This is obviously because some activists employed by Google don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite database gives.” Google is on record as stating that it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.
The issue with satellite data is that it shows less global warming than the frequently quoted surface measurements. This has long been a thorn in the side of green activists promoting the Net Zero agenda with hysterical fears that the planet is heading for catastrophic heating caused by the burning of fossil fuels. But surface measurements suffer from many disadvantages, not least the effect of massive urban heat distortions caused by the growth of cities across the globe over the last 70 years. Nevertheless, the higher surface measurements are used to provide covering fire for the guesses made by climate models that forecast future warming up to 6°C. Over the last 40 years, none of these models has even provided an accurate guess.
The lack of global warming since the mid-1990s is shown by a graph produced by satellite data specialist Remote Sensing Systems. Apart from a large spike in 2016 caused by an exceptional warm El Nino natural weather oscillation, there has been no significant warming for nearly two decades. Current annual temperatures were seen in the 1980s and 90s. These two decades saw a rise in temperatures after the falls from 1940-80 and provided much of the ammunition still being used by Net Zero zealots to promote the idea of global heating and climate breakdown. Meanwhile the graph overlays the results of climate model guesses and shows clearly how they doubled-down and became more extreme as the actual temperature flatlined.
The main surface temperature database used by the IPCC and scientists across the world is HadCRUT run by the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA). In 2018, the climate researcher John McLean examined the fourth version of HadCRUT in considerable detail to gain a PhD at James Cook University. His overall findings included: “[S]imple issues of obviously erroneous data, glossed-over sparsity of data, significant but questionable assumptions and temperature data that has been incorrectly adjusted in a way that exaggerates warming.”
For example, McLean noted simple errors such as a station reporting an average December monthly temperature on a Caribbean island of 0°C and a gauge in Romania suggesting a September average of -45°C. A town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 with an average temperature of over 80°C. Some ships reported sea temperatures in locations 80km inland.
Data sparsity was a real problem. The database starts in 1850, but after five years just three stations were reporting data for the whole of the southern hemisphere. The author noted that results from the southern hemisphere are crucial in determining global averages, but 50% of the area wasn’t covered until 1950. One implication of this lack of data, says the author, is that any international agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C that uses HadCRUT data averages from 1859-99 as indicative of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed”.
Having spent years examining the data, the opinion of the author was that HadCRUT4, and any reports or claims based on it, “do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change”.
In 2020, the Met Office and UEA issued a fifth version of HadCRUT. They said they had improved the use of marine instruments and “for the first time” used “statistical methods to provide improved analysis in data sparse areas”. Perhaps to nobody’s great surprise: “[T]he overall warming from the start of the record is slightly larger than was estimated from HadCRUT version 4.”
Temperature data is a vital political tool in the battle to push the Net Zero agenda. It is interesting to note that the Climate Research Unit at UEA was at the centre of the Climategate scandal of 2009, when the considerable warming of medieval times and the subsequent significant cooling were mysteriously erased in the infamous IPCC temperature hockey stick. Over 1,000 years, this just left a sudden recent temperature rise which was attributed to human causes.
Of course, satellite temperature data would be widely quoted in the mainstream media if it provided the politically correct narrative. It was therefore intriguing to note the claim made earlier this week on the BBC of the latest findings of the Copernicus Climate Change Service. “The past seven years have been the hottest on record, according to new data from the EU’s satellite system”, reported the BBC. Interestingly, the BBC at print, also known as the Guardian, published the same story attributing the obligatory record rise – correctly – to surface measurements.
Unsurprisingly, so did the Copernicus press release and report. The BBC’s misinformation is still, as of this writing, uncorrected.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So Goering’s more liberal today than Himmler?
The climate change scam continues.
Furious Fishermen Sue To Stop Offshore Wind Industry Wrecking Fishing Grounds
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/01/13/furious-fishermen-sue-to-stop-offshore-wind-industry-wrecking-fishing-grounds/
by stopthesethings
Please come and join our friendly peaceful events.
Saturday 15th January 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
Meet Corner of Castle Hill & High St,
Windsor SL4 1PQ
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The “consensus” can never be allowed to change because honest truth tellers are silenced. It’s an unsatisfactory state of affairs for the future of science.
If you want to understand why ‘scientific consensus’ is a fallacy [1] and also why no one can prove ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ are real and not inventions of the elites and the political elites, then read on.
The irony of ‘scientific’ consensus is that it is a fallacy. The vast majority of ‘scientific’ theories are false so there can only ever be a range of ‘scientific’ views all of which may have some validity and not a single view. [2]
The reason for this is simple. Complexity.
Where complexity is involved – which is ubiquitous in the natural world – the so-called “scientific method” fails because it is impossible to test x against y keeping all other variables the same. [This is why “the scientific method” is a fallacy – there is no “the scientific method”.
Only in some branches of the so-called ‘exact’ sciences [physics and chemistry] is it possible to do experiments where the results appear consistent with theory – and even that does prevent theories being false.
The classic example is Newton’s Laws of Motion which produce noticeably inconsistent and unreliable results at speeds approaching and exceeding a tenth of the speed of light.
In all the inexact sciences – starting with those where experiments are possible like biological sciences – even if experiments are possible, a proportion of results of every experiment will always fail to conform to theory. This happens because no two experiments are identical – it is impossible to control all the confounding variables.
Why? An example of natural complexity is found in the biological sciences. No two organisms in the natural world are identical. So any experiment on organisms found in the natural world will always be not one experiment but each experiment on an individual organism of a sample will be different even where the organisms tested are the “same” type of organism.
So the results will always differ and some will conform to the ‘theory’ and others will diverge.
In other words it can prove impossible to devise a theory which is not false. This is because complexity makes it impossible to test such theories to attempt to verify them.
Reliable prediction of outcomes is impossible
And of course it gets much worse if you try to base predictions on combinations of theories because the errors multiply the more theories you combine to attempt to predict. The end result is the probability of a ‘prediction’ proving correct becomes a very small number. This is also one of the reasons why a great deal of modelling does not ‘work’ and cannot be relied on.
NOTES:
[1] That is aside from the fact that ‘scientific’ consensus is manufactured by those who can shout loud enough and get politicians and the legacy media to wipe out the voices of those who contradict them.
[2] ‘Some validity’ is also misleading because anything which is partially valid is simultaneously invalid – like being only a ‘little bit’ pregnant.
There aren’t many positives to be found in events of the last couple of years, but the general public’s new knowledge and scepticism of ‘modellers’ is one of them. Climate predictions that start ‘modellers have found’ are far more likely to be greeted with well-deserved raspberries. We are all much more aware of their limitations, their hypocrisies and their political motivations.
Absolutely. I plead anthropecene climate change ignorance prior to this (as in I was happy to go about with mild environmental concerns e.g. habitat distruction and littering without making much of a hoo-ha about manmade global warming) but now when I see the same models and morons promoting this agenda as well as covid exceptionalism… well I don’t think i’ll be giving those theories much credence either.
J K Galbraith “There are two types of forecasters, those who are wrong and those who don’t know they are wrong”
A very satisfactory side effect of the plandemic narrative collapse would be the exposure of climate science as equally and similarly fraudulent. In many ways, the ‘climate emergency’ is far more vulnerable to cynicism than C-19; it doesn’t really have the emotive connotations and doesn’t affect people in their day to day lives. So now is the time to attack this arm of globalist propaganda – I’m glad DS has its eye on this too.
It will affect them once the measures ‘needed’ to address it start hitting them in the pocket. It would be good if DS could have articles showing exactly how our energy bills are made up and how much goes in subsidies etc and who is getting them!
DS has an assured future (hopefully) as C1984 gradually morphs into the impending destruction of the planet caused by men in motor cars.
Can Toby recruit Paul Homewood to lead the climate fightback? Let’s get on the front foot.
CG, I must correct you on “climate science doesn’t… affect people in their day to day lives.”
It does:
Light bulbs, E5 to E10 petrol, in Manchester the incoming CAZ (Clean Air Zone) which will hit everybody with increased motoring costs.
In May (?) the caps come off gas and heating charges with costs expected to rise by 50%.
Coal-fired power stations being taken out, no nuclear programme replacements.
I could go on but “climate science” is about to usher in a tsunami of misery.
Van tam is leaving in order to make way for a “climate science” nutjob.
SAGE will be disbanded to be replaced by a new committee of faceless, vacuous, nutjobs – CATTS
Climate Activists and Traitorous Twats.
Activist -Noun: an individual taking advantage of the freedoms available in their democracy to create chaos that will lead to the destruction of the democracy”
1. No legitimate evidence shows extreme weather increasing or sea level rise accelerating.
2. No legitimate survey of climate scientists shows anything close to the fabled 97% consensus.
3. All apocalyptic climate predictions by academics have failed.
4. Climate models used to generate alarm have no skill when checked against reliable tropospheric
temperatures.
5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable and dangerous.
5. …and expensive.
Even if this mythical 97% consensus actually exists, how many climate scientists who form part of that consensus do so because their funding relies on it or because they fear for their careers if they don’t?
Probably the same percentage as amongst the medical world.
“the proposed solutions are unworkable and dangerous” and just happen to make gazillions for the proposers. Snake oil anyone?
Google a few kids who could create an app, like the rest of the nerds, who then decided they were Gods by virtue of their huge pile of cash, so they get to say their truth, watch for
sex with children being acceptable, murder of white people being good. Because obviously being good with App invention makes you the holder of knowledge of all things.
How the CIA made Google. Inside the secret network behind mass… | by Nafeez Ahmed | INSURGE intelligence | Medium
Worth reading Roy Spencer’s own words about this on his website.
Google are pathetic, they should be scorned.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
google is a censorship engine disguised as a search engine.
‘Google is on record as stating that it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.
Well, on that basis, science is dead then.
Where would we be if Google had been around in the days when doctors thought smoking was good for you, that we should be eating lots of red meat ‘for protein’, and drinking a pink of milk a day?
Red meat, especially fatty red meat, is good for you. Sugar and so-called vegetable oils are not.
Meat is pretty good for you – as is milk. Eating more calories than you burn off is bad for you, eating too much sugar isn’t great either. But nowt wrong with meat and milk.
John Yudkin wrote in his 1972 book ‘Pure, White and Deadly’ “I hope that when you have read this book I shall have convinced you that sugar is really dangerous.” He was, of course, then attacked by the sugar industry and ‘The Science’ in the person of Ancel Keys who, in promoting the lipid hypothesis, has enabled Pfizer and the rest to push drugs (statins) as useless as the so-called Covid19 vaccines.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-fructose-may-contribute-obesity-cancer
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ptr.5654
sucrose is fructose + glucose
Or in the days of Galileo and hundreds of others.
If everyone knew “Global Warming” for the most part is occurring in the northern extratropics, at night, in the winter, the meme would have never got off the ground.
My biggest concern is what happened to all the SUVs 4940 years ago, enquiring minds want to know
With the Rockefeller Club of Rome’s publication of “Limit’s to growth” in 1973, the climate change Circus came to town. Now, those of us who have been paying attention, know that this was the catalyst for our current NWO “Great Reset” bollox….But every time they cancel someone of Dr Spencer’s stature, they wave a red flag to the indoctrinated masses!
These left-wing Big Tech companies are shooting the messenger and silencing dissent. Climate change is a religion to them and like the Medieval Catholic Church, heretics must be silenced and disposed of.
Goo G Le lies. News at 11.
The important topic here is the power of the filthy company Google.
I hate it when people knowingly and deviously use/manipulate language to suit their own ends:
Well established, so what? A cancer or other illness, mould, illegal practice …. can be well established. Something well estabished is not synonymous with being legitimate/worthy/beneficial.
Scientific consensus? And that makes it unassailable, incotravertable fact/reality then? But anyway, this is merely a particular, elevated consensus held by a certain very rigid set of people who have no interest or regard for actual science or truth. All they are interested in is trying to force their ideas/beliefs to become ‘real’.
The phrase “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
“Google is on record as stating that it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”
So if it was around a few hundred years ago, Google would have banned anyone saying the earth was spherical not flat?
I don’t think there was a well established scientific consensus a few hundred years ago that the Earth was flat. I do know that a few years ago it was alleged on TV that eight out of ten cat owners who expressed a preference said that their cat preferred Kitty Kat. Of course it was never stated how many cat owners were asked and how many of those asked did not state a preference. Perhaps 1,000 were asked, of whom only 10 expressed a preference? If so then only eight out of a thousand cat owners said that their cat preferred Kitty Kat. I don’t know whether Boris Johnson was copywriting then but if he was…
Don’t forget the man-made canals and vegetation on Mars.
Or continental drift and plate tectonics.
Or stomach ulcers.
There was nothing smaller than the atom.
Historically consensus is almost always wrong eventually; that’s science.
If they had said “all sites that are sceptical of verifiable fact” they could have banned people claiming there are more than two sexes.
How Easy It Is to Lie With Statistics On Youtube form 2019
Alphabet is an Alphabet agency that works to support the establishment not taxpayers.
This graph from John Christy demonstrates the absolute junk, generated from Surface Station data, plugged into a computer, then projected into the future has produced.
Satellite observations of the troposphere which Roy Spencer maintains, show the real warming trend enjoyed by the planet. Approx 0.8ºC to date from the 1970’s when satellites were first deployed for the purpose of monitoring global temperatures.
Tropospheric temperatures are comprehensive, global and uncontaminated, unlike surface temperature data which is largely clustered in northern Europe and North America.
Sea surface data from Argo floats is sparse and intermittent as the floats spend most of their life between 1,000 and 2,000 sub surface with a visit to the surface every 10 days or so to transmit their data before diving down to 1,000 feet again which is their ‘parking’ depth.
Tropospheric temperatures have none of these compromises. It’s a reliable measure of the planet’s temperature trend overall.
There are some on the DS who bleat about humans not living in the troposphere in which case they demonstrate their scientific ignorance of the concept of a global average temperature. In fact, most of them are simply science deniers.
Science is the practice of observable phenomena. Conclusions might be drawn to propose a hypothesis for the future, but that hypothesis must be abandoned immediately it’s falsified.
Climate hysterics are anti science because they never abandon a failed hypothesis. Their ‘science’ is fraudulent as they seek to prove a hypothesis that suits their narrative rather than work to falsify it.
Computer models are not science. They are GIGO and guesswork at best. Any one with a critical thought process who has heard the name Neil Ferguson understands that.
There are some on the DS who bleat about humans not living in the troposphere in which case they demonstrate their scientific ignorance of the concept of a global average temperature. In fact, most of them are simply science deniers.
Can you explain to this science denier how the concept of a global average temperature means that the temperature trend in the lower troposphere is equivalent to temperature trend on the surface of the earth.
Don’t use google!
As we have seen it is all about the money.
As in the silencing of experts still under the thumb of Fauci’s largesse that means the institution they work in depend almost entirely for research funding grants from him and therefore will ‘control’ the experts working in their labs. That most of those prepared to speak out are professors emeritus or otherwise financially independent experts is very telling.
The situation is the same in the world of climate fear where grant applications seeking funding to examine anything that might cast doubt on the official narrative are routinely binned.
Of course it is all of a piece, the objective of which might be summed up by the USA’s query before the Gulf War I “how come our oil is under their sand”, we are the inconvenient sand in their push to grab for themselves the means to preserve a more pleasant future free from having to share with the rest of humanity and the broader biosphere in general.
Nothing new about that fact. As they say, money talks. E.g. I’ve just been reading an old book about the history of London Underground development. An awful lot of it was funded by American cash, via this guy: https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/stories/people/charles-tyson-yerkes-unscrupulous-american-businessman-who-transformed Yerkes had a few enemies on the other side of the pond, as well.
Many of the articles and discussion on this site about Covid related matters are well-informed, well-argued and therefore challenging. The articles about climate change are none of these. I agree it is wrong of Google to kick Roy Spencer off adsense but the rest of this article is misleading.
Australia has equalled its hottest day on record after a remote coastal town reported temperatures of 50.7 C.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59977193
Unfortunately the Daily Sceptic is as one-sided in its reporting as the perceived opposition.
yep, and the Antarctic had the coldest winter on record.
What you fail to point out is that the temperature matched a record set in 1962 – 62 years ago! So where’s the upward tremd?
Global warming is another lie just like coronny!
Does google realise there was life before google ….