Way back in 2005 when climate science retained a modicum of integrity, questions were raised about the accuracy of the climate temperature record following the revelations from Anthony Watts that showed enormous numbers of temperature sites which were corrupted by development.(eg a site that might have been rural in 1950 but now very much urban due to development). It was claimed that adjustments to the data corrected for this, but that was open to question.

So NOAA created the USCRN database of temperatures using only pristine temperature sites that hadn’t been corrupted by development for decades. The results are here… http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
there is no discernible increasing trend in the temperature over the 18 years of data.

Recently a new study was published in Climate (http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179) which, long story short, showed that the temperature record is overstated by as much as 40% due to the urban heat-island effect. These numbers were determined by comparing rural only sites with data from combined rural and urban sites.

The result is to call into question the claims about the current temperature records derived from surface records, making the satellite records much more appropriate. It has been known for a long time that the satellite record shows a much lower warming than the surface record, which is why it is ignored by the climate cultists.

In a similar vein, a new interesting article from a climate scientist who explains how we are being misled… http://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published due to publication bias. In the new anti-science world of climate, papers that don’t tow the sky-is-falling line just don’t see the light of day as regards the media. Thus, in this case, we see climate being blamed for the recent fires in Hawaii and western America, when the real causes lie elsewhere.

Catastrophic climate change is a con that results in the massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy investment classes

Dear Mhaze,

How dare you?

Challenging the ruling class?

If they were not able to take away your wealth by fraud then they would take it by force as they did for centuries - which one do you prefer?

WTF?

We need to thank mhaze for deviating from his usual rants as this time he has actually referenced the National Centers for Environmental Information.

This organisation concludes: "Over the global domain, the NOAAGlobalTemp version 5 trends are statistically consistent with the previous version. These trends further support earlier research findings over decadal and longer timescales, showing the robustness of the warming trends and no slowdown or warming hiatus on decadal scales."

And later concludes: "Warming rates are even higher in the most recent period beginning in the late 1990s (0.18°C and 0.19°C/decade for 1990 to 2018 in versions 4 and 5, respectively) and early 2000s (0.19°C and 0.20°C/decade for 2000 to 2018 in versions 4 and 5)."

So thanks for the link mhaze - it reinforces the scientific conclusion that global warming is taking place.

The word 'corrupted' in the same sentence as 'climate science' is very appropriate. Everything about the false climate "emergency" is corrupt.

The final paragraph of this worthy post says it all. I would add the creeping totalitarian power that Australian politicians are accruing to themselves. Democracy in Australia is looking more like the sort in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

From Jo Nova today:-

"Using the same ClimateChange reasoning the UN Secretary General uses, it’s clear fossil fuel use dramatically reduces the number of dangerous cyclones in the Northern Indian Ocean. A new study revealed an astonishing 43% decline in the number of equatorial cyclones in recent decades (1981–2010) compared to earlier (1951–1980) when fossil fuel use was vastly reduced. The researchers also point out that this is especially interesting because “the Indian Ocean basin has warmed consistently and more than any other ocean basin.” Could it be that warmer oceans are not necessarily terrible?" (joannenova.com.au)

WTF?

ttbn your source appears to have used Google to gauge the uptake in interest in this research " A Google News search today shows that in the seven days since the press release came out, exactly no mass media outlets have reported this good news."

I didn't think you trusted Google?

Also from the research your source refers to : "When this tug-of-war between the natural and anthropogenic forcing changes, and they begin to work synergistically, the risk of severe cyclones in the post-monsoon north Indian Ocean may be amplified."

Also, the research referred to states: "the Indian Ocean basin has warmed consistently and more than any other ocean basin.” and also "the risk of severe cyclones.... may be amplified".

So the concept of global warming causing less frequent but more severe cyclones is not new.

Further the research states: "... 3 other studies have questioned the reliability of the TC data in the pre-satellite era due to the changes in technology and analysis protocols".

There is nothing new to see here.

The implication that "fewer cyclones is a good thing, right?" that appears in JoNova's title is downplaying of the expected more severe cyclones.