Changes

====Integrity of the data====

====Integrity of the data====

Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature data sets, as clarified by Eschenbach.  

Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.  

:* One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.  

:* One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.  

:* The final one is at [[NASA]] (GISS), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  

:* The final one is at [[NASA]] (GISS), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) data set for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities." The term "inhomogeneity" is defined in a quote from GHCN:

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancy's that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."  

At Darwin Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.  

At Darwin Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.  

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further to see how Darwin homogenized each of the individual station records that created the average of the homogenized Darwin records. Eschenbach started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that the "homogenized" data has been adjusted to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." At least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.  

{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! ... [A] six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? ... [T]he GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' ... Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question ... and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. ... Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}

{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax.  It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax.  It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]