USHCN adjustments seem to show the increase is entirely made of adjustments?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11932
The best bit is the final graph:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
If you look at it, it looks very much like the increase in temps we have been told is going on. But it’s not. It is the changes made to the raw data sets to produce the ‘adjusted’ data sets.
Conspiracy? Where’s my working? Well, this is their graph, not an independent one! It comes from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ itself.
So this tells us, in no uncertain terms, and completely unambiguously as far as I can see, that the increase of 0.6C is entirely fabricated. True I have not searched for a justification of that fabrication – it may be valid, but it should be reported as such!

Maldives and Tuvalu are no longer in any danger of flooding

UK Parliament memo:
FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT SEA LEVEL CHANGE MAY LOW-LYING ISLANDS AND COASTAL AREAS BE FREED FROM THE CONDEMNATION TO BECOME FLOODED IN THE NEAR-FUTURE

in reference to:

"It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.   With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997."
- House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Written Evidence (view on Google Sidewiki)

An Inconvenient Turn - Gordon Brown leads Al Gore into a closet at Copenhagem

So Gordon Brown, with his unerring sense of direction (not) leads Al Gore astray. Makes a chane from Al leading everyone else astray, I suppose!




But what is it with the jackets? Both jackets are buttoned when the enter, and both are unbuttoned when they leave. Make you wonder, but I'm not sure about what.....

Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic During Live Interview

AGW believers are getting violent!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-cultists-assault-global-warming-skeptic-during-live-interview.html



Meanwhile, 'security' is forcibly turning people away:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom (and it's still there!)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/


• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

Christopher Monckton talking to a Grreenpeace protester in Copenhagen

This is a really good video. Monckton and the Greenpeace lady have a very reasonable discussion. Her beliefs are challenged, and Monckton urges her, as all of us, to check the facts, not listen to political organisations and media reports.

Very good advice.

Taiwan's sea levels NOT on the rise due to global warming

GLOSS give the rise at 1mm (0.1cm) per year over the last 50 years, and nothing at all over the last 10 years:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/610016.gif

If you look at the graph, most of that was before 1970. From the early 70's there has been no real rise overall, and it is certainly not steady in any case (like just about all sea levels around the world, in fact, if you study GLOSS data).

in reference to:

"Taiwan's sea level has risen by an average of 3 centimeters over the past 10 years, or about 0.3 cm each year, said Fan Kuang-lung, a professor in National Taiwan University's Institute of Oceanography. Fan, who led an NTU research team in studying tidal changes along the coasts of Keelung, Yilan, Taitung and Kaohsiung between 1991-2001, said global warming and human behavior, particularly on the west coast of the island, are leaving Taiwan increasingly vulnerable to climate change."
- Taiwan's sea levels on the rise due to global warming - Taiwan News Online (view on Google Sidewiki)

We really must rethink the entire argument. If they want to hide the tructh this badly, the truth must be pretty damaging!

Armed Response to 'Climategate' question at Copenhagen:

How come an armchair skeptic like me can debunk this AGW theory?

An interesting question posed by my sone this evening. How come I can, from my armchair and armed only with Excel and an Internet connection, debunk all this scaremongering. Well, I can and I strongly encourage anyone to do the same, don't rely on the media, or even the climate scientologists who seem to have a strongly blinkered or biased view of the world. 

The real answer is, because anyone can, if they have the time, inclination, and a lot of patience. Steve McIntyre, for example, is a scientist, and has spent many years doing some deep investigations and finding serious problems with the data. It is quite easy to find some of the raw data, but not always easy to find the data used by the climate alarmists because they seem to not want to share in many cases.

What do we do, then. Well, a really, really good example of how the Urban Heat Island effect is skewing the available data. It's not made up, it's not any kind of debunking, it just shows that rural temperature records are not rising over 110 years whereas urban records are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI

I have discovered that GLOSS (sp?) sea level records indicate no overall trend at all at first glance. When I get the time I will write a program to import the data into a database and graph it to see if my eyeball is accurate.

Another one is the data from Australian weather stations. Darwin in particular has been shown to be flat (if not trending down) even though the 'adjusted' data shows a rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

And you can look for yourselves:

I’ve just had a quick squiz at some data from the Oz weather Station Data site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
The first few sites I chose look pretty darn flat as a trend. Could it be that it it has all been entirely made up? When I’ve looked at sea level data from GLOSS (sp?) they seem pretty up & down but averaging out to no trend. These may be ALL showing no discernible trend if not ‘adjusted’.
I will examine all I can tonight. To do it is easy:
1. download the site list, opens in Excel.
2. Go from this link entering each site in turn,
3. select from the top left of the grid to the bottom right,
4. copy, paste into notepad (to preserve tabs)
5. paste into Excel
6. highlight the annual average column and press the graph button (easier in orifice 2007).
7. observe the flat trend
8. write to your political representative of choice / media of choice.
I am only speculating on step 7, but so far that’s what I’ve been seeing. Also, If I had more time, or millions (or even billions) of $’s in research grants, I’d look at the monthly data too.