There is nothing mysterious about using the gap between models and observations at the end of the period as a measure of differing trends. When Secretariat defeated the field in the 1973 Belmont by 25 lengths, even contemporary climate scientists did not dispute that Secretariat ran faster than the other horses.   -- Steve McIntyre That Secretariat was a very fast horse is about all you can get universal agreement with climate scientists in the field of metrics. When it comes to measurements of the earth's temperature, which, of course, is their field, the actual data is often tweaked until it agrees with their global warming hypothesis (the exact opposite of how science should be conducted; more on that topic here ). Unfortunately, I have two new examples of climate scientists moving the goalposts from the back of the end zone to the 12-yard line. Let's begin with a discovery I made over at NASA's climate website . It shows Dr. James Hansen's (the father of ...

Here is the second part of the BBC's interview with Dr. Phil Jones, one of the world's leading pro-GW scientists-advocates who has been at the center of the Climategate controversy. F - Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency? First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say "station" records, I will emphasise the land regions. There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of ...

I have been asked, several times, why I have not blogged about Al Gore's Op-Ed in Sunday's New York Times.  The reason was that there are so many things wrong with it, I hardly knew where to start. However, because so many have asked, let me offer a few comments on the "science" aspect of his editorial. Mr. Gore appeals to 'science' early in his piece, We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake. I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Two errors? Here is a list of the errors ( courtesy Hot Air ): University of East Anglia e-mails  that...