Just read this and see what we are up against

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/paging-chuck-rice-at-kansas-state-real-data-is-calling-you-collect/

Take a trip down memory lane and look at the loony predictions these same types of highly educated people were making on the 1st earth day in 1970 :



http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-p...



Since these people are making similar predictions with the same tone of urgency and alarmism how can we take them seriously? They fail.

I have a file of genuine university studies constantly discovering both alternative causes of all climate changes, including better understanding of total solar output and sunspot activity, decadal oscillations and cloud cover. These together on a graph faithfully follow current temperature changes, and secondly various have shown the data analysis to show no discernible warming, man made or otherwise. Of course with such complex measurements and thorough lack of detailed knowledge, as this was never an issue required to be known in such detail until the 90s, it is no wonder the data changes and varies so much for the same areas measured, and as such is way too uncertain and unclear to be relied on at all as solid evidence. The most recent data analysis was carried out by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem this year, not only covering more than any before it, but the entire Berkeley University BEST dataset. They found it almost impossible to discover a single signal showing anything more than natural variations.

Given the weight and quantity of such studies, growing annually as temperatures stabilise, science has to accept that they make mistakes, premature conclusions and I have a separate list of errors and measurement anomalies which have added false readings into total figures enough to raise temperatures as much by the errors than any other cause. It is impossible to remove the old graphs entirely from the material online, but they are misleading and anyone looking which year had the highest temperature can choose between 1998, 2010 or some time in the 1400s depending which official IPCC source they discover first. In fact until 1995 the hottest year on record (although from 4-8000 years ago it was far warmer than today, so 'record' is a subjective issue) was during the medieval warm period, in all the earlier literature and part of the UN's own records. With the arrival of Michael Mann's hockey stick (one of four diagrams considered but the sharpest slope of all) it was flattened to make the average temperature unchanged for millennia, although the source of the proxy records had not changed but had been heavily edited, including losing most of the tree rings.

The media are even worse, as when BEST was released it was spread worldwide before the deadline for the next morning's papers, but when Hebrew University, an equal institution and one of the top science creators of the world, produced an even greater analysis it has never been reported by a single known organisation, as no sites exist besides the original and one which reported it online only. The same applied to NASA's Aqua satellite, which found CO2 displaced water vapour, contrary to the models, and Japan's official JAXA satellite which found CO2 was emitted by unpopulated areas and absorbed by urbanised ones overall. As it was poorly reported on their own site that one remains uncertain as there simply hasn't been any official analysis of it to know what it means, besides one quick Youtube report which had been written up by one person, but the very reluctance of the media to touch these studies tells us something far more important than the blindingly obvious fact the climate data disagrees across the board. Just look up the hottest year to find out, and then adjusted temperature graphs. You'll be swamped. A new report this week alone has found the satellite measurements showing the 21st century trend has risen from 1.7mm a year to 3.1 has now been shown to differ from tide gauges for the same period worldwide by a remarkable 400%, falling to 0.7mm a year by direct measurements. There had already been a doubt the satellites had been calibrated to the sea surface and this appears to confirm it.

Combine the contradictory material issued by what appear to be two opposing sides of science (not standard practice since the geocentric universe argument) with the almost universal lack of reporting of serious studies questioning the UN position and it seems while science is simply working above their weight, the media are clearly selecting what is reported, and that is dishonest.

Lesson: Ignore that blog. It is highly dishonest and purposely misleads dim-witted readers who never bother to check facts. If you check the facts you will see that the article and quoted scientist is 100% correct.

The quote: "Chuck Rice, a professor of soil microbiology and a climate change expert at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas, says there is no doubt that droughts are cyclical but temperatures clocked last year in the most recent dry spell have beaten historical records. 'The records weren’t just slightly broken; they were significantly higher,' he said."

Watts or whoever wrote the post didn't bother to check before accusing somebody else of errors.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/record...

Pick your month. In July 2012 for example, 116 high temperature records were broken in just the state of Kansas. That's records going back to 1850.

The record in Topeka for July 29 was set at 109, 4 degrees higher then the previous (set in 1999).

Melvon Lake on July 30 was 110, 3 degrees higher than the previous (1980)

Douglas County on July 30 was 108, 6 degrees warmer then the previous (1999)

You now know that if you value truth you have no reason to read Anthony Watts. Don't take my word for it. Check the facts yourself and see how Watts lies to you.

Well if you are talking about watts, then it's a less than cunning liar

Note he uses just part of the year a drought is the product of what happens over a whole year, winter rain also plays a part getting into ground water.

But watts expects his tame audience to just look at the pretty pictures and not understand that.