Warmists are breathless
LONDON, March 19 (Reuters) – Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which for years maintained that 1998 was the hottest year, has published new data showing warmer years since, further undermining a sceptic view of stalled global warming.
The findings could helpfully move the focus from whether the world is warming due to human activities – it almost certainly is – to more pressing research areas, especially about the scale and urgency of human impacts.
After adding new data, the CRU team working alongside Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre said on Monday that the hottest two years in a 150-year data record were 2005 and 2010 – previously they had said the record was 1998.
See? Change a few data sets (remember, the CRU and others work hard to make sure their publicly funded raw data is not released) and boom! change! But, wait a minute
None of these findings are statistically significant given the temperature differences between the three years were and remain far smaller than the uncertainties in temperature readings.
So, statistically insignificant. Climate Realists do not argue that the world has warmed, we argue that it is mostly or solely the fault of nature, and that most perceived warming is actually from land use, such as deforestation and urbanization, among others. But, really, all this is is an attempt to make the facts fit the talking points.
As Anthony Watts points out
Some of the change had to do with adding Arctic stations, but much of it has to do with adjustment. Observe the decline of temperatures of the past in the new CRU dataset:
Make sure you read the whole thing, for which Watts provides lots of that sciencey stuff. What they’ve done is essentially cool the past, and warm the present. Not the first time Warmists have played with the data
Australian Climate Madness: If you torture the data enough, they will surely confess. Also, noting from a BBC article, ACM notes
“For the latest version, we have included observations from more than 400 (observation) stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada.”
And exactly what are those stations? The news reports and actual report do not really say. For all we know, it could be the thermometer in someone’s backyard, and we still do not have the raw data.
Still, even if the data is 100% correct, it still only proves that….the climate has warmed, like it has countless other times. Doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.
