Decades-old government report shows climate data was bad

by Steve MacDonald

Lisa Benson, Climate, Global Warming, HumorWarmists and Cultists will pshaw.

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the research arm of the National Research Council, released a study expressing concern about the accuracy of the data used in the debate over climate change. They said there are,

“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records,” that “place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.”

Watts Up With That has the list of scientists who came to this conclusion decades ago, many of whom then proceeded to rubber stamp IPCC conclusions drawn from the same data.

There’s plenty more at the link, not that any of it will dissuade the true believers.

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    No. This is laughable and pathetic. Your headline, and the claim by prominent denier (and serial liar) Tim Ball, does not show that the climate data was “bad”. The paper was pointing out inadequacies in the measurement system. But the trend from surface temperature measurements, satellite data, and ocean temps, as well as measurements from boreholes, are all the same–upward. Ball and WUWT are disreputable sources that routinely distort the science to suit their masters’ interests: the corporate carbon-dioxide spewing fossil fuels industry, and the larger right-wing Kochtopus network. That network is working feverishly, via funding of its disinformation network–such as “think tanks” [sic] like Mercatus, to take over our democratic republic. They do this in pursuit of their particular definition of “liberty”–which is for themselves, but not the rest of us.

    • Bryan W

      It didn’t take long for our resident denier-denier to chime in. So many logical fallacies in a paragraph: ad hominem, ad hominem again, lots of words saying & proving nothing – just attacking the sources. Worth at least 30 points in a debate.

      • Bruce Currie

        Feel free to take issue with some of the specifics in my post. Explain, for example, how the headline and gist of the post aren’t entirely made up, and completely distort the paper. Or the fact that those false claims make the one who “made this up” a liar. A Google search will show that Tim Ball can’t even tell the truth about his qualifications as a “climate scientist”. it’s also accurate to say that the Koch brothers are major funders of climate science denialism. So I don’t see “logical fallacies”, and my “ad homs” are accurately descriptive of both Ball and WUWT. While it’s a vain hope on this site or this topic, the post should remind the reader to consider the source of any claims–especially extraordinary ones calling for us to disregard climate science.

        • 175jfs

          You put people to sleep Currie because you’re long-winded and boring. You’d suck as a salesman but would do wonders with anyone suffering with a sleep disorder. That’s the real reason the end-of the-world climate crowd can’t their message across. Boring.

        • Bryan W

          No, sorry. You make assertions – it’s up to you to back them up. I’m not going to do your research for you. And I do consider the source in everything I read – need I tell you which pile you’re in most of the time?

          Plus, the source of the data is constantly in question when you have such stellar measuring stations like these providing the measurements.

          BTW, Tim Ball is absolutely correct when he says that CO2 is not the cause of “climate change.”

          • Bruce Currie

            Don’t let the facts hit you on the way out. From the BEST study of the surface temperature record:

            “We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2? error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).”

            And on the topic of CO2, the science flatly contradicts Ball’s claims. He’s a charlatan nearly on the order of “Lord” Christopher Monckton. Here’s some real science for your viewing edification–sure to be rejected out of hand as causing serious cognitive dissonance issues. So much more comforting to lie down with the fossil fuel enabled deniers like Ball and Monckton.



          • Bruce Currie

            Then there’s the chart you posted–probably from Ball’s site– on global temps and CO2 levels. Suffice to say there’s lots going on that makes for intentional misleading understanding of the close connections between atmospheric CO2 and temp. For instance, the chart makes no mention of the evolution of land plants, 450 million years ago, which had the effect of pulling down CO2 levels until there was enough cooling to counteract an increase in weathering due to higher CO2 levels in soil air. Also, I’m not sure Ball’s graph is accurate for CO2 levels for the interval between 100 million years and 0, since my chart shows a bigger spike in CO2 at about 55 million years–a rapid release of CO2 known as the PETM, or Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum event, which warmed the oceans more than 5 degrees C. (More evidence of CO2 work as a climate thermostat). The bottom though, is that over the last one to two million years–which doesn’t even appear on the scale of Ball’s chart–but is clear in the video links below, there is a close correlation between temperature and CO2. Increasing CO2 levels are a feedback response from initial warming due to orbital changes to Earth, which then force more CO2 and additional warming.

          • Bruce Currie

Previous post:

Next post: