A few years back. while discussing the so-called Global Warming Temperature Pause (eg http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/climate-science/climate-observations-projections-and-impacts/paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.pdf) I wrote that alarmist and other climate cultists ought not worry because the folk at data adjustment central would be working overtime to alter the data to eliminate the pause.

In 2014, the data on the most used dataset (HADCrut4) showed that world temperatures has increased by a mere 0.03C in the period 2000-2014 and that with margins of error there was a statistic pause in warming.

This was a disaster for the climate alarmist, not to mention the climate carpetbaggers, who sought all sorts of ways of diminishing the implications of this data.

In 2014, the folk at HADCrut decided that the data needed to be adjusted and did so. Following these changes, (well lookie here) the data now showed that the temperatures between 2000 and 2014 had now, as per the adjusted data, increased by 0.08C and that there was no longer a statistic pause.

But that wasn't good enough for the cultists, so they then decided to revise the dataset as HADCrut5 and (lo and behold!) the temperatures between 2000 and 2014 had, according to the new data, increased by 0.14C.

That is, the data for the same period, using the same measurement systems had been adjusted from an increase of 0.03C for the 14 year period to 0.14C. and thus, the pause was gone - never happened. Thousands of scientists had been working on the reasons for the pause. Even the IPCC had looked at why it had occurred. And then, suddenly (poof) it was gone.

Meanwhile, the satellite temperature record which HASN'T been adjusted to suit the alarmists continues to show a pause between 2000 and 2014. It also shows a DECLINE in temperature trends between 2015 and the present of 0.09C. But that doesn't getting talked about - unhelpful to the narrative dontchyaknow.

Recently the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a paper which not only validated the satellite record but showed that the climate models significantly over-estimate warming.

Tell me again, why do we need net-zero emissions?

Dear Mhaze,

«Tell me again, why do we need net-zero emissions?»

1) Governments (both national and world) need social cohesion to suppress us and kill our independent spirit, and in order to build social cohesion they need to create some common enemy - in this case the element Carbon, 6th in the periodic table (representing Satan, 666?) and having 12 protons+neutrons (representing Judas Iscariot of the 12 apostles?). What else to do when people no longer believe in witches?

2) Fossils in the form of oil, coal and gas slowly accumulated in earth's crust for perhaps 2 billion years, then in just 100-200 years half of them are already gone. Is that right to burn them like this and not leave anything for the future intelligent species, our superiors, who may follow on earth in perhaps some 100-million years hence once foolish mankind destroyed itself? Would you waste your own savings that quickly unless drunk? How would you feel if someone else robbed your life-savings in one go like we rob the earth? Is that fair? We are guilty and deep down we know it.

Yuyutsu, if in 100 million years some new highly intelligent species has replaced us on the planet, let them use wind & solar power, I would rather we used it now, rather than save it for your mythical species.

Remember the stone age didn't end because the cave men ran out of stones, & the hydrocarbon age is highly unlikely to end because this carbon life form ran out of hydrocarbons. We stopped harvesting dung long before it ran out, & we will stop wanting to harvest hydrocarbons long before they run out, if greenies & governments just stop trying to pick winners & direct our efforts.

We all made up our minds about climate hysteria years ago; the hysteria is still there, and the results are worsening.

Yesterday I received a notice telling me that 'Your electricity rates are changing', which was coward-speak for you are going to have to pay an extra 34% to keep the lights on. That news was in tiny figures needing a magnifying glass to read.

The expensive, economy-killing nonsense is not working (there is no net zero CO2 magic occurring anywhere in the world) and the next step will be climate lockdowns. ('The New Abnormal', Aaron Keriaty).

The bad guys are still winning - because the sheep, still bleating about the Covid Terror they allowed - are as gutless as they were then, when they should have been rising up.

It's a waste of time talking about it. We are going down.

Energy Australia advises that the East Coast electricity network will be "precarious" this winter, and the price "misery" will continue, thanks to taxpayerfunded unreliables that are making the likes of Twiggy Forrest and his CCP mates richer and richer. All thanks to a few scheming mongrels who started the false climate "emergency".

And the rest of us patiently wait in the holding pens to be shorn, not only of our money, but also of our freedoms.

Whether there is global warming or not- we should encourage China, India, Africa to keep their populations at more sustainable levels. Many conflicts in the world today could be reduced through lower world population density.

We all need energy to live- oil and electricity are some of the more efficient forms of global "grid" energy.

The energy debate seems to be conducted based on communist principles and favouring high population density nations.

Dear mhaze,

Not a single reference showing the changes. We really don't have time to scurry after you down your crackpot rabbit holes.

How about spelling it out with references we can check.

"we should encourage China, India, Africa to keep their populations at more sustainable levels." I note he only mentions "coloured" countries, no mention of densely populated white cities and countries, keeping their populations at more sustainable levels, up to 30% of people in developed countries live below the accepted poverty line. The underlying narrative from this bloke is, white lives matter more than any other and have a superior right to exists over others. Oh yes, another bit of nonsense about communism is included as usual.

I once thought the problems of the world regarding population were a third world problem, then I realised they were problems foisted onto people in the third world by the greed of Capitalism by people in the first world, it started with direct colonial exploration by the British and others, then later it become more of remote economic exploration by America and those of their ilk. Now there are those like CM demanding the third world fix "their problems" created by first world exploitation. Maybe we should all work together to fix OUR problems.

If you look at the top national populations of the world the top 2 (India and China) are bigger than the next 18.

Africa has four times the land area of the US and also has four times the population of the US- but Africa has much worse stability than the US. And even though Africa has four times the land area of the US- they say that the US doesn't treat Blacks well. I think that Blacks don't treat Whites well.

SR,

This probably didn't occur to you but once they make the change then all previous iterations of the database are removed. Therefore its impossible to show what the data looked like before the changes.

But perhaps I can show you a place you might trust that showed that the purported trend was much lower back in the time before the alarmists decided the data needed to be tortured into telling the approved story.

Go here.... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314263

Here we see a fellow called SteeleRedux who advised that the HADCrut4 trend was 0.084c/decade. That same trend not using HADCrut5 is 0.155c/decade. Now I'm sure you'll point out (and I'd readily agree) that we really can't trust this SteeleRedux fellow as regards numbers since he's shown ample times that numbers and statistics confuse him no end. But on this occasion we can trust what he said back in 2015 since I'd schooled him on how to get these trend calculations. So in 2015 the data showed a trend rise of 0.084c/decade and now the data shows a trend rise of 0.155c/decade ie it's virtually doubled.

But the alarmists will ignore that because.....narrative.

I think we may as well stop trying to achieve net-zero because the fight to save the planet is over.

On 21 June 2018 that world famous climate scientist Greta Thunberg advised that "climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next 5 years". Well the five years is nearly up and we didn't stop using fossil fuels. So its all over.

We are finished unless world famous climate scientist Thunberg was wrong but that can't be so. After all she graduated high school just this month!

So we may as well live it up waiting for the apocalypse.

OTOH, that other world famous climate scientist Greta Thunberg advised this month that future generations will suffer if we don't phase out fossil fuels soon. So clearly Thunberg thinks Thunberg was wrong to say humanity would be wiped out this month.

For these catastrophists the end is always nigh and never quite occurs. But the followers believe it no matter what.

There seems to be an ideology of dealing with climate change that is opposed to nuclear energy and geoengineering. I cannot fathom the mentality of people who think a fifty year climate forecast accurate, yet ban such things as ocean fertilisation.

Just a few more items of the ongoing climate alarmism....

A new study published by the EGU found that the Antarctic ice shelf GREW (yes grew!!) in the period 2009 - 2019. (http://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/2059/2023/)

The study talked of increases in the ice shelf in some places with similar but smaller decreases in other parts of the Antarctic. Of course, as always applies these days, the media and the alarmist movement (but I repeat myself) declared disaster over the declines and never quite got around to mentioning the increases.

That's how climate alarmism is fostered.

___________________________________________________________________-

In the past I've talked about the climate scenario called RCP8.5 (now renamed SSP5-8.5) which, when pulled apart, is clearly fanciful. Even the IPCC says it is a low likelihood estimate. Yet a new paper has found that 42% of all climate scenario claims are based on this fanciful estimate. Because these scenarios are based on a low likelihood estimate they are given a "low confidence" rating in the IPCC scientific report. But then when the SPM (Statement for Policy Makers) report is prepared the "low confidence" notation is removed and by the time it reaches the press the "low likelihood" becomes established fact.

For example, the AR6 report has “low confidence” that humans have contributed to flooding, yet the Summary for Policymakers says the opposite, with claims that human influence has increased “compound” flooding. By the time it is reported to the masses, the claim is that the IPCC has found humans responsible for increased flooding.

http://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/

That's how climate alarmism is fostered.