Global Warming Junk Scientists Even Pushed Bogus Hurricane Data
So, were these junk scientists honest about anything?
– The UN panel based claims about disappearing ice were based on a student’s dissertation.
– The UN climate chief knew about bogus glacier studies before he went to the UN Copenhagen summit.
– Oh… And he has a chauffer take him to work each day from his home that is one mile away.
– The UN also fudged data on the disappearing Amazon rain forests.
– Not to mention this year’s record cold and snow is killing thousands of livestock.
– Top CRU scientist Phil Jones admitted this weekend that there has been no significant global warming in the last 15 years.
– Jones also said the data for the bogus hockey stick graph has gone missing.
– And, Jones admitted that warming periods have happened before – but were not due to man-made changes.
Now there’s this…
Statistical analysis of raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased due to global warming cannot be supported.
More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.
Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.
Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist…
“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.
Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.
The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.
Thre IPCC’s WG1 paper states: “There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.” Hatton points out the data quality is similar in each area.
The IPCC continues: “It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.
“The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,” Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. “This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it’s due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other – then that’s interesting to me.”
Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.