Here’s my takedown of the latest climate hoax in today’s Boston Globe.
Here is the key claim:
Now if you look at the past 50 years of winter temperature, significant warming does seem to be occurring at a rate of 0.8°F per decade.
But, of course, New England didn’t start having temperatures in 1973.
Here is the NOAA chart going back to 1895. And we see that the warming trend since 1895 is only 0.3°F.
But imagine the article the Boston Globe could have written in 2002, when the 40-year trend showed warming of 1.3°F per decade — a rate more than 50% greater than today’s report.
So rate of warming all depends on the (cherry-picked) time frame one is looking at.
There are three other important points to make.
First, NOAA manipulates and falsifies its raw temperature data into something called “adjusted data.” NOAA both cools the past and warms the present to exaggerate the appearance of warming, as Tony Heller (among other) has pointed out at RealClimateScience.com.
Next, while the climate narrative is that all warming is caused by emissions, in reality it is not clear that emissions cause any warming.
I discuss this point more here.
Finally, that warming is bad is a mere assumption. So far slight warming and more CO2 has taken humanity from about a billion people in 1820 to 8 billion today — and the Earth is greener than ever before in history.
Bottom line:
1. Yes, New England is probably warming. But the entire Northern Hemisphere seems to have been warming since about 1650.
2. The rate of warming is uncertain because of NOAA temperature tampering and other issues like temperature station precision (96% of temperature data is corrupted).
3. The exact cause of the warming is unknown, but it doesn’t seem like emissions have much to do with it. The observed warming is probably a combination of El Nino events, urban heat island and other not well characterized causes.
4. There is no evidence that warming is anything but good.
As to your 4 bottom line points above,
Amen, brother!
The “whole warming is a disaster” scam has got to go.
Maybe, someone in the media will point out that the real world data says no, there’s not.
“at an alarming rate” OMG!! We’re all gonna die. DIE I tell ya!
Corporate media has been bleeding readers for decades ever since the advent of the interwebs and blog sites like this one. So what did they do in response? Why patently LIE their butts off to attract the stupid and gullible to their TV shows and other media. They NEED catastrophe on the front page to draw the idiots in.
As far as CAGW goes, I always challenge the rabid warmists to do just this one simple thing: 1) plot the difference between the raw temperatures and the published temperatures (to get the ‘adjustment values over time). 2) next plot the measured CO2 in the atmosphere and plot it on the same graph (normalizing the values). You will immediately note that the crap “adjustments” just happen to follow the rise in CO2 levels.
There are three measurement systems: radiosonde, satellite, and land/sea. Two of these track very closely: radiosonde and satellite. The land readings’ data is tortured mercilessly to yield “dangerous” warming trends that support rent seekers of all kinds. See Davos for reference. Total scam IMAO.