Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity

chartThe London-based think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation is today launching a major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records. Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected. The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend. —Global Warming Policy Foundation, 26 April 2015

Climatologists have long been aware of the poor state of global surface temperature records and considerable effort has been put into adjusting the raw data to correct known errors and biases. The global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy. In order to try to provide some clarity on the scientific issues, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited a panel of experts to investigate and report on these controversies. The International Temperature Data Review Project

Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists – we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not. –Terence Kealey, Chairman of the International Temperature Data Review Project, 26 April 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures. Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 26 April 2015

Panel member Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist and climate expert from York University in Toronto, said he had been concerned about the records’ quality for many years, after noticing that when you examined an individual station ‘you’ll see a sudden jump’. Such jumps, he said, were not natural, but the product of adjustments.  ‘Sometimes you get “corrected” data without knowing exactly how it has been changed. I’m a scientist. I’m not going into this with any preconceptions. But if some of the corrections have not been properly made, then we’ll find out. We want to see all the actual station data.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 26 April 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (12)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Maybe Al Gore could Chair the “Panel of Experts “. Can’t wait to see the results .
    Let’s hope all the details are made public before some ones dog eats the results.
    All committed warmists no there is balance for you .If they are such “experts ” why have they not analyzed the data before taking a position on the subject .Why are they doing it after 20 years when $$Trillions have already been spent already on the Global Warming Hustle ?

    What if they conclude the numbers have a little too much fudge factor ? Are they really going to say anything at all that would further trash the credibility of the
    “Scientists ” who produced the stuff in the first place ?

    Who picked these experts ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Pete West

      |

      Wasn’t Al Gore’s company going to make the device which measures CO2? If so he would have made billions of dollars on the back of these figures?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Doogi

    |

    The focus must be on (quote from GWPF) “considerable effort has been put into adjusting the raw data to correct known errors and biases”. Sounds like the easiest way to fabricate data to confirm warming! I would like to see unadjusted data as well.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Once data has been adjusted, it is no longer data, it is an [i]artifact[/i] of analysis.

      The grantologists point to [i]artifacts[/i], and claim it as ‘[i]data[/i]’.

      da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun
      1- [i]facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.[/i]

      ar·ti·fact ˈärdəfakt/ noun
      1- [i]an object [b]made by a human being[/b][/i]…

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Yes!
        I am going to have to use the “quotes” when I mention the Data, much like I did when I mentioned the AGW “theory”, which is actually a refuted hypothesis…

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          In this advanced age of CGI, why would anyone believe in models, or modeled artifatcs?

          We can make Godzilla appear more real than this sci-fi fantasy of CAGW.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Doogi
    Good luck .

    Here is what the results will say in essence :
    We, a small clique of drinking buddy scientists, who have pushed the global warming hustle for decades, have now decided this is the appropriate time to actually review the source data used to underpin the hypothesis that human contributions of CO2 are causing the earth to have a fever .

    Our detailed analysis confirms that while there has been some “adjustments” to the source data these are very minor and well with in a band of reasonableness
    considering the countries ,locations ,instruments, and penmanship of the “scientists” collecting the information .

    Furthermore nothing in the data suggests we depart from our view that when a cow farts ,or when humans breath out they are altering the climate hence the case for spending $$$Trillions more to save the world and throw a bit more cash at scientists like us .

    Pass the Gin boys . Will one of you send a copy of our conclusions to the Pope .
    Who has a dog ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. The science is solid. Cooking the books doesn’t hide the proof. Only existing data and the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate results from the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of a net forcing and not the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself.

    Search “agwunveiled” for the proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Somehow I have a feeling that this data was likely stored in the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s “personal” server. Oops!… we just can’t find it now…

    Well, we know that the AGW group is above reproach and [i]only[/i] interested in the well-being of the planet, so we’ll just cut them some more slack…

    Mark my words.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    QB

    |

    The arrogance and smugness of the hucksters will never allow them to concede error much less fraud. Regardless of the findings they will merely explain away any questionable practices as unfounded accusations from paid assassins hired by big oil. All who question them will be summarily branded as uneducated buffoons , incapable of cognitive thought.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.