BTW, here’s several photos of Russia’s 2007 “global warming” winter…

So which is it? Too little snow, or too much snow in the span of two years that equals “evil” mankind’s dastardly nature deeds?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This gets even funnier when you consider the host, Bill Dod, and his side comment about not having snow on the ground when you’re supposed to be having snow in Russia.

uh… oops. Isn’t part of “global warming” – so they tell us in condescending terms – supposed to be inordinate amounts of snow, rain, drought, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, tsunamis and extremes? That’s convenient… any change… too much snow, or *no* snow is all the fault of man and global warming. sigh

No one denies climate “changes”. Climate *always* changes. What we skeptics “deny” is that man is a sufficient contributing cause. Nothing to do with cleaning up air… we’re all for that. But oppressive, economic killers like the IPCC and warmists want? No way, Jose. You’re a long way from proving that to me.

But I digress… back to the “no snow on the ground” comment by host Dod. And let’s look at that when it comes to “measuring” Russia’s temps.

Last year, Nov 2008, an article from UK’s Telegraph, title “The World has never seen such freezing heat”.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Whoa… like how “inconvenient” is that “truth”? Let’s fill in the missing blanks with previous warmer months measurements as the GISS data. How very “scientific” a “carry over” formula. whooo hoo! I feel so very confident in the “science” now. LOL

Naturally, in light of Watts Up With That and McIntyre (of let’s “debunk the hockey puck” graph fame), GISS… instead of arguing and defending their measurement “adjustments”… began *revising* them. Only to make them credible, they had to “discover” a new “hotspot” in the Arctic.

Whoa Rudolf… has anyone notified Santa???

This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. [Mata Musine: naw... say it ain't so, joe! Ain't this what the CRU-NIWA faulty science debate is all about? Faulty databases?]

This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

This isn’t the first time NASA’s Hansen has had to scramble to redo his “science”. McIntyre called him out in 2007 when he had to revamp his claims that the 1990s were the hottest on record for US surface temps when it was actually the 1930′s… PRE industrialized/POST WWII America.

DOH!

Concur with “the bronx”. The Brit (Corbyn) was spot on. Pure rubbish is being spouted as “concensus” science.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My friend Knarley Manners in Northern BC told me that last winter was the coldest winter since 81-82, six weeks of temps below 40 below. He asked if I could arrange some Global Warming up there.

I told him to write Al Gore, he has a lot of hot air and might be able to help out this winter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Brit is spot-on!

Complete. Rubbish.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Looking at the reproduction-rates in Russia, they’ll all be gone this century anyway.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FloppingAces, FloppingAces. FloppingAces said: Looking for climate change coverage in all the wrong places? Turn to Russia Today TV: While the blogosphere remain… http://bit.ly/7YU0AK [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0