Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes

I’ve stolen VV’s title. Why not? He’s the man who knows. Moyhu also has something interesting to say. All I have to say is: WTF?

In case you’ve missed it, there’s a real one, and then there’s the GWPF’s comedy one. You can read the GWPF’s stuff at tempdatareview.org, though why you’d bother I don’t know. As Moyhu points out, the figure used on that page is badly misleading, and certainly unbefitting any serious review. Anyone with a clue would refuse to be associated with anything with that on its terms of reference; but then again, anyone with a clue would refuse to be associated with the GWPF anyway.

I really can’t see how this can possibly even be supposed to work. People have tried attacking the temperature records before, and its always a dismal failure. Think of BEST; think of the nutters in NZ; think of the children… oh, hold on. Anyway, the last thing the GWPF wants is an actual credible serious review of the biases. Or at least; the last thing they should want. Perhaps they’re so self-deluded they really think there is something there.

Which brings me back to: how do they think this will work? Do they seriously expect the various national meteorological services to make submissions to their tinpot panel? I rather doubt that will happen. All they’ll get will be a few like Moyhu, and a pile of nutjobs.

Refs

* Denier Weirdness: A mock delegation from the Heartland Institute and a fake enquiry from the GWPF – HotWhopper
*ATTP is also somewhat puzzled by this nonsense.

9 thoughts on “Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes”

  1. Think Wegman

    By the time the fire was discovered the horses were long stolen from the barn.

    [Could be; it might be what they’re aiming at. But Wegman had some ?Senators? behind it; who have the GWPF got? -W]

    Like

  2. W: “Wegman had some ?Senators? behind it; who have the GWPF got?”

    Some Peers.

    [Peers are nowhere near as important, influential, or attention-getting as senators. Even relative to the UK, they’re less; let alone absolutely -W]

    Like

  3. Senators are less important than Fox and primary voters.

    [Which is another reason this will fail, here: it just doesn’t resonate with the voters. I wonder if they hoped, by announcing it now, that it might get picked up as an election issue? If so, they failed badly; instead its got buried -W]

    Like

  4. Not every Republican is Senator James Imhofe. Thank the deity for small favors.

    But the Imhofes of the world have made it difficult to be a ‘conservative’ and not, at the same, time batshit crazy on climate change. I’ve briefly entertained the idea this may be an attempt to walkback some of the rhetoric. If the GWPF can produce a report that ‘largely accepts’ the temperature record of the past, while dissing future predictions of change, they could begin to open up a space slightly to the left of batshit crazy for certain conservatives to occupy with some justification.

    I said briefly entertained because the ideas is silly. ‘Obamacare’ has enabled 16 million more Americans to obtain health insurance. The percentage without health insurance has been cut by 1/3. Yet recent polls show 46% of Republicans believe the opposite. They are batshit crazy. Trying to find sane justifications for their beliefs or actions is futile.

    Like

  5. I wonder how many mitigation sceptics would participate in an audit of the environmental impact of the coal industry from Earth First.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s