Shock News! Finally, the GWPF Corrects a Mistake!!

David Whitehouse has just published an article on the Global Warming Policy Forum web site entitled “How The Recent El Nino Saved Climate Models“.

The article itself is of course straight off the GWPF’s porky pie production line, but in the small print at the bottom there is this “Shock News!”:

Finally, we must correct a mistake. In February a scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us what January’s figure was before its official publication. It turns out they were wrong, and we have corrected the graphs accordingly. Here is HadCRUT4, with its pause and recent El Nino peak.

GWPF-latestHadcrut4-20170313

When the HadCRUT4 data for 2016 was complete the MET Office estimated that 0.2°C was due to the El Nino. So here is that difference.

GWPF-HadcrutMinusElNino-20170313

A scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us that once again David Whitehouse is mistaken:

Can we now expect David Rose to issue an even more abject apology in next weekend’s Mail on Sunday?

8 thoughts on “Shock News! Finally, the GWPF Corrects a Mistake!!

      1. Sorry to hear that, Jim. Have you tried asking about it (say, as a PS included in the comment)? If not, that might be worth a shot.

        1. I gave up attempting to pursue the issue many moons ago.

          Maybe I could try again when he pens his next Arctic article?

          P.S. I note that the conversation has already turned to my specialist subject. Let’s see how long this takes to appear:

          Selection_999(111)

          P.P.S. Not too long! Now let’s see if anybody starts talking sense on the topic?

          1. Robert’s reply seems to me to overstate the case. The likes of Axel Schweiger and Eric Steig aren’t your typical “lukewarmers” after all.

            This deserves a blog post of its own, which will have to wait until tomorrow (UTC). However in the meantime “Alice F.” is having some fun over at WUWT.

  1. RE: The claim that …
    “… In February a scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us what January’s figure was before its official publication. It turns out they were wrong …”

    I think there may be an altogether more prosaic explanation. In Jim’s earlier “Climategate 2” thread, I wrote the following…

    In Rose’s malodorous article, he claimed that the HadCRUT values for [Jan] 2017 and [Jan] 1998 were just about identical. As has been pointed out, this would have involved something akin to time travel, as the HadCRUT figures were not published until a couple of weeks after the publication of the Mail article.

    Of course there could just be an astonishing coincidence at work here, but I rather suspect I may have found the real reason behind his cock-up.

    HadCRUT 4.5 Jan 1998 anomaly +0.485 deg C
    HadSST 3.1.1 Jan 2017 anomaly +0.484 deg C

    The HadSST figures tend to come out several weeks in advance of the equivalent HadCRUT figures, so that could easily explain where Rose obtained the incorrect value. Seems like he is incapable of telling the difference between a Land+Ocean dataset and an Ocean-only dataset, and it would be ever so embarrassing to have to own up to such a brainless mistake.

    Pathetic!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *