Australian Unions Have to be Held to Account.

Union Thievery by Craig Thompson. Up to the courts to throw this one in jail.

Thieving Unions.

I can honestly say that I have never ever donated or paid a single cent into the Union's coffers. Even when it was demanded as part of the job application and payroll deduction, I would demand that I pay equivelent amount to a charity as I was never going to support the criminals that are associated with unions. That has been the case for as long as I have worked.
Criminals are automatically attracted to the easy money that unions have because they are not held accountable for a single cent of it to nobody. They can throw it about however they like and that is exactly what they have been doing. Stealing of the poor, humble, in this case, hospital, hospitality workers and keeping for themselves but the bucket full. They should be jailed, every single union should be audited and any discrepancies accounted for or someone goes to the slammer. That is what happens to you and me, we break the draconian laws we pay, one way or the other.

Funny but not unexpected, the Prime Minister of Australia has been associated with Unions for years and now she will be tarnished with the same brush and should be held accountable as well for her nefarious activities.

The scandal that now demands answers 

Andrew Bolt

August 04 2012 (9:08am)

 

We need specific answers, Prime Minister. And can you also explain the circumstances of your leaving Slater & Gordon. The Australian reports:

INTERNAL documents from an exhaustive police probe into a union funds scandal in the 1990s show detectives suspected former Australian Workers’ Union boss Bruce Wilson and his then alleged bagman, Ralph Blewitt, were “crooks” and wanted them criminally prosecuted over a $400,000-plus alleged fraud…
Most of the funds that allegedly went missing had been paid into an entity, the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
Julia Gillard, as a solicitor at the time for Slater & Gordon lawyers in Melbourne, which acted for Mr Wilson, Mr Blewitt and the AWU, did legal work related to the establishment of the association in Western Australia.
At the time, Mr Wilson and the Prime Minister were in a close relationship. Ms Gillard has repeatedly and strenuously denied that she had any knowledge of what the association was going to be used for, and has also denied receiving any benefit. She has declined to provide further comment about her role at the time ...
The police running-sheet states that “suspect withdrawals” were made to buy a Melbourne house at the centre of the alleged fraud, in Kerr Street, Fitzroy, in 1993. Mr Blewitt was the legal owner of the house, purchased with allegedly stolen money for the use of Mr Wilson in a transaction handled and part-financed by Slater & Gordon solicitors. The firm waived its conveyancing fees…
Ian Cambridge, then national head of the AWU (and now a Fair Work commissioner), stated in an affidavit in the Industrial Relations Court in 1996 that he was “unable to understand how Slater and Gordon, who were then acting for the Victoria Branch of the Union, could have permitted the use of funds which were obviously taken from the union, in the purchase of private property of this nature, without seeking and obtaining proper authority from the union”.

The story once so successfully suppressed is now going mainstream. The Financial Review:

The Australian Workers Union has admitted that possible corruption by some of its officials in the 1990s forced it to tighten its financial controls and try to retrieve union money.

Is Shorten normally so dismissive of scandals involving the rip-offs of union members? If so, is he fit to be Workplace Relations Minister?

Workplace Relations Minister and former AWU national secretary Bill Shorten described the case as ”ancient stuff”.
“I know at the time my predecessors certainly did take all the material to West Australian and Victorian police and what I understand is those authorities chose not to take the matter any further, not to prosecute,” Mr Shorten told 3AW.

The Australian begs to differ:

The AWU, under then president Bill Ludwig and then secretary Ian Cambridge, fought to recover the funds. Former attorney-general, Robert McClelland, who was the AWU’s lawyer at the time, recently said questions still needed answering and action had to be taken to prevent it happening again. Slater & Gordon must explain how it could allow such an entity to be established and then carry out conveyancing on a property purchased with funds from the union without authority from the union itself.
While we have an open view on this matter and accept the Prime Minister’s denial of any knowledge of, or involvement in, this scandal, questions continue to linger about Mr Wilson and Slater & Gordon. It demands a new investigation by legal authorities.

While I admire The Australian for pursuing this, I think it should be less dismissive of the blogosphere, without which this would have been yet one more story buried or ignored by the mainstream media:

THE former union official who has offered to throw new light on 17-year-old allegations of corruption in the Australian Workers Union should be given a hearing, if only to put to rest the rumours and conspiracy theories that mostly populate the internet, spread though the blogosphere and find their way into the twitterverse.
All too often these claims lack evidence, credibility and believability.

Some of those in the blogosphere who have kept asking the questions, presenting the evidence, have done so without the financial backing against legal action that mainstream journalists enjoy. They deserve a little more credit for their courage.
Labor says the scandal is old - but refuses to reveal the truth of it:

Lines from the Prime Minister’s “live issues brief” yesterday morning—a pollies’ guide to responding to hot media topics if asked by journalists:

THESE are ancient matters that have never gone anywhere, no matter how many times people have tried to reheat them. Because there’s nothing in them. It is worth remembering that the only reason they are being brought up today is because someone’s promising to reheat them in a deal to avoid criminal charges. The last time they were published the newspaper ended up apologising for making false assertions.

Ancient matters? Robert McClelland, Labor MP, former federal attorney-general and a former lawyer for the AWU quoted in The Weekend Australian, July 14:

LEGAL advice from a torrid union corruption scandal in the 1990s sheds new light on how the solicitor who would become attorney-general, Robert McClelland, and the woman who sacked him, Julia Gillard, were pitted against each other in a costly legal battle over her former boyfriend and on claims that he had misappropriated $400,000 of union money. Mr McClelland further raised the stakes in an interview when he said for the first time that a “third party” might have benefited from the alleged union wrongdoing in the 90s. “I think that any fair-minded person would have to regard the outcome from the 90s as being totally unsatisfactory because, despite protracted litigation, union funds that were misapplied were never returned to benefit members,” Mr McClelland said.

Nothing to see here; move along. Swan yesterday:

JOURNALIST: We’ve seen a former AWU member come out and say that he’s willing to make a statement about events that occurred quite some time ago. Are you concerned that such statements could be detrimental to the Labor Party?
Swan: Not at all. I don’t think there’s anything in this issue that’s been raised in the past; it’s gone nowhere. In fact, it’s been raised in some embarrassing ways by those who raised it in the past. I’m not interested in it and I don’t think it’s got any significant implications whatsoever.

If nothing improper occurred, then where’s the harm in detailing exactly what was done and why? End of story, then.
UPDATE
Reader Ian of Brisbane notes how determined The Age is to avoid smelling the stink:

Search “The Age” website for “Bruce Wilson”. The most recent reference was a 23 June column by Peter Hartcher. Nothing to see here.

New Zealand AGW Weather Fiddlers Now in Court.

Fiddling the results on NZ weather temps no in court.

The IPCC as well as other global warming scientists have been making grandiose claims about the Planet frying during our lifetime and deriving some of that information from the results manufactured in New Zealand. It has been demonstrated that the weather results from NZ are worse and even more bogus than Al Gore as well as the Hockey Shtick.

Currently they are in court fighting out the result of those manipulations and it does appear to be the case that the shannanigans continue as they try to hide or cover up their manipulated data as we have always expected.

Par for the course of the Global Warming Church is that one must be a compulsive, ignorant liar. As that apparently is all we ever hear and see presented as all else is conveniently hidden from view, stats are doctored and the faithful are told what they want to hear.. Criminals, the lot of them.

Kiwi sceptics in court.

The discredited NZ temperature record is in court as skeptics mount a legal challenge to the data tampering which has artificially created a warming signal. The NIWA record was vetted by the warmist  Aussie Bureau Of Meteorology but the adjustments must be a little strong even for the BOM as NIWA is refusing to release the report following established Team procedures used by Mann et al.
We wish our Kiwi cousins good luck. John O'Sullivan has the story:

New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers move for sanctions likely to prove fatal to government’s case.

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are reeling after what may prove a fatally embarrassing admission that it is breaking a solemn undertaking given to parliament. NIWA had assured ministers that it would disclose a third party peer-reviewed report of its science for courtroom verification as part of its defense against a petition in the case of NZ Skeptics-v-NIWA.

NIWA’s decision renders an almighty self-inflicted wound to the government agency’s already dire credibility. But worse, the move will be regarded as contempt of court and thus permits the court to grant the plaintiff’s motions for punitive sanctions, including summary judgment. As such, this would bring a swift victory for skeptics with profound legal ramifications around the world. In the sparsely-measured southern hemisphere the New Zealand climate data is critical to claims about a verified global temperature record.

UPDATE: Vogue Magazine: Rose in the Desert, Joan Juliet Buck.

Al Assad, dictator and mass murderer.

I would have been just as disgusted as everyone else who read that bit of Syrian propaganda in the Vogue Magazine 17 months back. It was the worst bit of pro Al-Assad propaganda I have ever seen and that covers a lot of territory. The blatant attempt of trying to raise the public perspective of these murderers is absolutely inexcusable but here we have the author crying, weeping and gnashing her teeth claiming that in actual fact, she is the victim.

Poor, poor, pitiful me.

Her claim that she was against the publishing of the article is just a load of cods-wallop, if not a downright lie. Now that the Al-Assad family is responsible for murdering defenseless families including children, they finally admit that, well, maybe, just maybe they should not have published that trash. But actual confession is gone as they have erased the article from the Vogue site for the cowards they are. The entire article is an absolute disgrace and no one word about it's deletion.

There were also other people lining up with the Al-Assad assassins ofcourse, who would prefer if they could, to just melt into the wood work -

 Besides, as she notes, she was taking a road to Damascus already trodden by such pioneers as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, Sting, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Francis Coppola; as well as a public relations firm hired by the Assads, Brown Lloyd James (which took care of her Syria visa).

All left wing lunatics as usual who have no idea of what they are doing let alone demonstrate any capacity of ever learning from their abhorent ignorance and stance in favour of those murdering lunatics.

As usual we have those false and fake do-gooders laying claim to being even more enlightened than everyone else because they went out of their way to, you know, get touchy and feely. It is how they justify their stupid, ridiculous behaviour. How else could associating with a dictator and murderer be explained.

The murdering dictator's family, Say hello to the Al Assads.

It’s now 17 months since Vogue published its cover-story paean to the first lady of Syria, “Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert.” Readers were treated to a profile of Asma up close, “the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies,” a dazzling paragon of understated style and philanthropic works, “on a mission to create a beacon of secularism and culture in a powder-keg region — and to put a modern face on her husband’s regime.” Asma, “glamorous, young and very chic,” was featured playing with her kids, whipping up home-cooked fondue with her jeans-clad husband, “the off-duty president,” and urging millions of Syrian youth to engage in “active citizenship.”
That was February of 2011. The following month, Syrians began engaging in a lot more active citizenship than the Assad regime evidently had in mind, rising in rebellion against the dynastic tyranny in Damascus. For 16 months now, abetted by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Syrian regime has been fighting back — with heavy weapons, arrests, torture and butchery, mutilating and murdering even children. To date, an estimated 19,000 or more Syrians have been slaughtered, and the killing continues.
Now, at long last, comes a recantation of sorts from the author of Vogue‘s “Rose in the Desert,” Joan Juliet Buck.  To call it a full-throated apology would be inaccurate. Buck appears genuinely appalled by the carnage with which the Assad regime itself so swiftly and utterly discredited her labors to give it a fashion-plate human face. But her deeper sympathies seem reserved for herself, and her woefully bad luck that her Asma profile — which closed with President Bashar al-Assad, surrounded by singing children, ringing a peace bell —  came out just before the monstrous character of the Assad regime hove into full view in the international headlines. (After a blitz of criticism last year, Vogue scrubbed the article from its web site, though you can still find a copy here.)

UPDATE.

The Desert Rose Affair Returns

Closer inspection does not improve things for Vogue.

By Jonathan Foreman

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress.

One does wonder if there are any principles left in the AGW science community, where they would outright lie in their statements to congress. Surely that is a jailable offense and one that should be followed up in this case. Jail one and the rest will finally get the picture that by telling obvious lies about the climate will end you up in jail and not on the speech circuits earning millions of dollars as some have already done. Don't mention the hockey shtick though.

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.

This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field's testimony is here in PDF.

1. On the economic costs of disasters:

Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."

What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. (More on the NOAA billion-dollar disasters below.) There is good reason for this -- it is what the science says. Why fail to report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and indicate something quite the opposite?

2. On US droughts:

Field: "The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."

What the IPCC actually said: "... in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ..."

Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa?

3. On NOAA's billion dollar disasters:

Field: "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9."

What NOAA actually says about its series of "billion dollar" disasters:  "Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons"

Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train wreck, not peer reviwed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC. So why mention it?

4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:

Field:  "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not identify a trend or express confidence in projections concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The evidence on hurricanes is mixed."

What the IPCC actually said (p. 269 PDF): "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

Hurricanes are, of course, tropical cyclones. Far from evidence being "mixed" the IPCC was unable to attribute any trend in tropical cyclone disasters to climate change (anywhere in the world and globally overall). In fact, there has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. Field fails to report any this and invents something different. Why present testimony so easily refuted? (He did get tornadoes right!)

 5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of floods and droughts:

Field: "For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium confidence) for most land areas."

What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

and (from above): "in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America"

Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood disasters and climate change has been established. Increasing precipitation is not the same thing as increasing streamflow, floods or disasters. In fact, floods may be decreasing worldwide and are not increasing the US. The fact that drought has declined in the US means that there is no trend of rising impacts that can be attributed to climate change. Yet he implies exactly the opposite. Again, why include such obvious misrepresentations when they are so easily refuted?

Field is certainly entitled to his (wrong) opinion on the science of climate change and disasters However, it utterly irresponsible to fundamentally misrepresent the conclusions of the IPCC before the US Congress. He might have explained why he thought the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions, but it is foolish to pretend that the body said something other than what it actually reported. Just like the inconvenient fact that people are influencing the climate and carbon dioxide is a main culprit, the science says what the science says.

Field can present such nonsense before Congress because the politics of climate change are so poisonous that he will be applauded for his misrepresentations by many, including some scientists. Undoubtedly, I will be attacked for pointing out his obvious misrepresentations. Neither response changes the basic facts here. Such is the sorry state of climate science today.

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 8/01/2012 12:04:00 PM

Prof.Dr. John Christy Lays out the Facts. CAGW a Farce.

Gee! sun still shining, crops still growing, still raining and still here. What CAGW !!

There is nothing more satisfying than witnessing the truth being finally told to the Senate inquiry by John Christy. Nothing warms the heart more, one wonders if his stellar advice will be taken on board or just tossed over the side as they have done in the past. To those supporting the CAGW theories, this could put an end to their "snout in the trough" of public funding drying up so it will be interesting to see how many of those thieves and liars respond.

The one who howls the loadest would have the most to loose...

Video: John Christy’s stellar testimony today – ‘The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.’

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Anthony Watts

From The Senate EPW Jim Inhofe Press Office, well worth your time to watch.

Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.

Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.
See also his written testimony here

Anne Summers and Chip Rolley: Feminist Harridan and a Mangina.

Bill "I did not touch that woman" Clinton appropriately shown.

Many examples can be found when dissecting a leftists intellectual pursuits. Be it Communism. Fascism, feminism and plenty of other "isms" that would make too long a list. But follow those "isms" is what they do, right down to the smallest "s". Needless to point out that they want to "change" the world and make it better when in reality they have only really just made it worse in many ways. This is what happens when those spoilt, selfish and self serving elites have nothing better to do on a daily basis then wallow in their own insecurity, which is ofcourse financed by the taxpayer et al.

They are incapable of wandering outside their ivory towers in order to see the world as it actually is, they spend way too much time plotting and scheming to destroy it and fit it into their Utopian" dream as only they see fit. The "isms" have all that same mentality, as they are all determined to destroy the existing, which has indeed worked that well as to bring these clowns to fruition, but their mentality is that only they have the "secret" of life in their grasp and everyone else will be forced to except it without argument or discussion. They have already undertaken that already. In their own mind ofcourse and with their own left leaning loonies who just all agree with each other regardless of it's brain numbing stupidity. Their end result can be read in George Orwell's book "1984". That s their aim, their so called "secret", it is their version of utopia to have the entire population trained and living the lie. That lie can be found in the Former USSR or Cuba or North Korea, all countries that have had to murder a fair whack of their population in order to introduce their "fairness and equality" policy.

So efficient are they at killing and murdering that it is never a topic raised, as they have already have that one down to perfection. Here are a couple more of those drones and inbred clowns, whose aim in life is to destroy yours....

Isn't it nice just shacking up with mummy.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Chip Of The Old Bloc

MR Anne Summers, sometimes known as former Sydney Writers Festival honcho Chip Rolley, will not take up his duties as editor of The Drum for another month or so, which must demonstrate even more than the pleasure of waking up every morning next to his former boss at Ms magazine just how much luck one young man can jam into such a short and blessed life. There he was, hardly more than a teenage Texas tumbleweed trying to make it in the Big Apple in the Eighties, when he lucked into a job at the proto-feminist monthly. Eyes met across an editorial floor, hearts beat faster and, while Summers' magazine sank into a sea of red ink, love took wing and soared.

Chip

It is a beautiful story. Having failed in the US, Summers and business partner Sandra Yates returned to Australia, where some people can be very easily impressed, especially at Fairfax. Summers wrote those wonderful pieces for which she is so well respected, sharing with the Silly's audience all the special perspectives of her fascinating view of the world. When Bill Clinton came to town, for example, she told of choking back tears. He might have been a rapist, almost certainly is a rapist, but he's a rapist of the left so that makes him OK, even to a professional feminist.

 Anne

Yates, too, was kicking on, landing board gigs and scoring the chairman's job at the SWF. She did it with aplomb, presiding over the festival that makes sure  99.9% of guests are ideologically sound and fully fit to be revered by the sort of people who believe that visiting literary leftists lecturing rooms full of the local variety represent the exchange of ideas in its most pure and noble form.

It was certainly a coincidence that Yates' former business partner's beau just happened to be installed on her watch as the SWF artistic director -- just one of those strange outbreaks of happenstance. We can only imagine Summers' pride, however, at seeing young Chip make something of himself. If you have ever watched a nanna delighting in her grandson's first steps, that must be some small tremor of the joy she felt.

Now Chip is about to move on once again -- and, as ever, the pieces just seem to fall into place for him. Not only did he jump straight from the SWF to a nice, secure ABC salary as Drum supremo -- a job that was briefly advertised and must have drawn hundreds of less-qualified applicants -- he will have the satisfaction of supervising towering talents like the all-hearing Tim Dunlop, the forever couth Marieke Hardy and many other deep thinkers like, well, this one.

And Chip's luck -- he is the Gladstone Gander of the literary set, for sure -- knows no bounds, as anyone who peruses the reader comments beneath this article will quickly realise. There is nothing wrong with the article itself, mind you, which quite correctly observes that newspapers taking their cues from the likes of Summers are too busy circling the biscuits to notice normal, average, sane readers turning away in disgust. The Drum commenters, though, they might be Summers' great grandchildren, banging on at great length about everything that is wrong and morally deficient about Andrew Bolt. According to those commenters, Bolt endorses "the worst aspects of Australian society", profits from "the politics of envy" and manufactures "appalling smears" which are said to be "typical" of him. Also, the ABC site announces, it is "proven" that he "makes things up". Then there is this: "People like Andrew Bolt ... usually want any person with a contrary view to their own put in gaol with the key thrown away."

Throw in accusations of telling deliberate lies and, if Andrew has the stomach for it, it would seem he has grounds to proceed against the ABC for libel.

But that won't be young Chip's problem, as the slanderous comments have not been published on his  watch.

Some guys have all the luck -- and Anne Summers for breakfast as well.

A NOTE: For more on the perspectives and views young Chip will be bringing to The Drum, see Gerard Henderson's little backgrounder. 

How AGW Scientists Manipulate the Results.

Here is a fine example on what happen when temps are played around with. The different adjustments manipulates the graph to suit whoever is fiddling with the stats. Steve McIntyre has done a sterling job in exposing the crooks, the false savants and Snake Oil Salespeople, showing through practical applications including calculations, exactly how, when and where the Global Warming Soothsayers have erred or cheated or played with the result just to show how hysterical we are supposed to be about a planet weather system that appears to be almost self correcting.

Will we fry in our beds tonight or be BBQd next week ? It just ain't gonna happen and meanwhile our food and power goes up while those lunatics play paranioa and guess who pays the bill for their inane stupidity, lies, misinformation and thievery.

Gridding from CRN1-2

COMPARISONS
First here is a comparison of my calculation using CRN1-2 data to NOAA results from 1890-2007. (I re-iterate for the N-th time that analyses on U.S. data are not representative of the ROW.) NOAA has values to Aug 2007 and I’ve estimated the last 4 months as the same as the corresponding 2006 months for now. NOAA has run warmer by about 0.2 deg for the past decade and was about 0.1 deg C cooler in the 1930s.

Second here is a comparison of CRN1-2 data to GISS pre-Y2K results. As you see the GISS with the Y2K error was running warm by about the same as NOAA – which may be one reason why they didn’t spot the error. GISS runs a bit warmer than NOAA in the early and mid portions of the graph due to their greater efforts to do an urban adjustment.

Third, here is a comparison of CRN1-2 data to GISS post-Y2K results (but not including the September change from SHAP to FILNET, which seems much too opportunistic.) Relative to CRN1-2, GISS tends to warm the cool periods (1960s, 1900s) and to cool the warm periods (1930s), reducing the size of the mid-20th century cooling. For the U.S., as noted before, by using the trends from “unlit” stations to establish trends – in a context where there are a lot of decent rural stations with long records – the GISS methodology for USHCN stations seems more appropriate than the NOAA (and probably the CRU methods). Unfortunately, this method is not used in the ROW, where there is nothing equivalent to the USHCN.

Finally, here is a reconciliation to John V’s annual results sent ot me yesterday. His 2006 results run much colder than the ones that I calculate- which is presumably an artifact of the 3 months stub period that he used in his calculation. So the anomaly with his 2006 results can be traced definitely to this (which shows up a “cool” difference in the graph below.)

So what does my calculation using CRN1-2 data look like: see below, which includes a 2007 estimate (using the 2006 difference between the CRN1-2 and NOAA to estimate 2007 CRN1-2 from the YTD NOAA results.) In this calculation, the warmest year remains 1934 by a margin of nearly 0.2 (enough to be “statistically significant” according to things that GISS has said, then 1921, then 1998, then 2006 in fourth place. Values since 1998 have been at uninterrupted high levels. Looking at the graph, it’s definitely noticeable – but is it the sort of change that’s inconsistent with the sort of stochastic behavior in the early part of the series – hard to tell here. If you cut the series off in 1997, you certainly wouldn’t have noticed anything odd about the 1990s. You can sort of see in retrospect why MBH98-99 were so excited about how warm 1998 and in such a rush to include it in their article. The main verification issues right now is why the ROW history is so different from the US – is it climatic or nonclimatic? And can one tell?