My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« ADMISSION: No statistically significant warming since 1995 | Main | BREAKING: IPCC lied about Antarctica, public belief in AGW plummets »



Two immediate questions spring to mind, both about whether apples and being compared to apples:

1. Is the same area being covered?

2. Does the fact that the IPCC graph anamoly is relative to the 1900-1951 base period make a difference? (See pg 695 og

Plotting both sets of data points on the same graph (with the same base period) would seem to be the answer to the second one, if the first one isn't an issue. Why hasn't someone done that?


Further to my first question, NEU could mean Northern Europe?

That relevant IPCC page says "See Supplementary Material, Appendix 9.C for a description of the regions).".

Has anyone looked at that?

james richardson

Why is it Wishart, that your 'current affairs' website is devoted entirely devoted to climate change denial? Who's paying you? As you are a Christian, I ask you to look to your lord and confess in regards who's paying you?


James you are a total dipstick. This is probably the largest humanitarian issue on the planet at this point, and you think it is not worth discussing?
Your ad hominem arguments are pointless, and only demean yourself. Do you think the the AGW proponents are not handsomely paid through research grants, status, travel etc? In any event the fact that someone might be paid does not mean they are not correct.


Pete, I would be interested in whether you believe my questions are legitimate or not.

Here is the relevant Supplementary Material, where 'NEU' is defined (on pg 9)

There are only 2 regions for Europe. NEU and SEU. NEU is defined as being between 10W to 40E, and 48N to 75N. It also only includes land (not sea).

So it would appear that the answer to my first question is 'No'. Thus invalidating the 'little nugget'. The areas are not directly comparable. Question 2 doesn't even need to be considered.

Is really now how hyped up you all are that you screw something up this royally without noticing? Perhaps you should crank down the alarmism a notch or two?

Bob D

CM: Question 2 is immediately irrelevant - a differing base period would have the effect of shifting the whole anomaly graph up or down slightly. A glance at Frank's graphic shows the two graphs are almost perfectly aligned post-1960, with maybe a 0.05ºC difference. But it's obvious to everyone that the shape of the graph is the topic under discussion, not the actual anomaly values.

On question 1:
The graphic showing Hadcrut temperatures for the whole IPCC NEU region is shown below. Same as Frank's graph.

Andy S

With respect, is this anything to do with David Wratt?

I do however, have other issues with that Listener article..


Bob - would be good to know for sure that they are looking at the same area. They've realised their basic error and added an 'update' but we're still relying on them not screwing up again (still might not be comparing apples to apples. They are saying "someone has just given us the right datasets now" but it would be a brave person to hang your hat on that. Needs to be a little more transparent (particularly if they're the ones bagging others for not providing data for verification).


Oops, looks like they' the whole thing off....

"Hi OB!

You have many valid points, and even though the Hadcrut grid graph appears to show a marked fall in temperatures after 1940, its not so big a fall when calculating decade for decade as you say.
I have not checked the facts since the info concerning NEU has passed Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Karlen. And actually “facts” on this matter appears slightly different on the net from place to place. I simply gave a supplement to karlens Nordklim data from other sources. The article at WATTS stands as if correct this very day.

So what are the facts after checking out all? Hadcrut data is not really contradicting IPCC data when looking at the area -10W/40E x 50N/75N. So we are left with an IPCC graph placed over Scandinavia showing a warming trend not to be found in Scandinavia but mostly originates from more southern latitudes. It reminds me of how IPCC presents Arctic temperatures by including areas down to 64N and 60N… But it is not an easy provable case against IPCC here it seems.

Im certainly not used to see data from Willis/Watts/Karlen not to be solid. I think we will pull the story of, maybe rewrite it and post it later. I will talk with Nicolai what to do.

Your concern that the sceptics might look faulty in such matters is correct and therefore these things should indeed be corrected. But when your concern is that the sceptics might look faulty when errors like this occurs, please think about how you announce it to the world… You are VERY welcome to let us know of other errors in the A – Z.

K.R. Frank Lansner"

Nah, I say this proves Wratt is a witch. He should be burned at the stake.


Notwithstanding any of that, Ian put it forward as a Scandanavia comparison without doing the most basic independent research. Which is standard operating procedure on denier blogs.

Frank Lansner

"Which is standard operating procedure on denier blogs."

Is that so? First of all the IPCC graph plantet on Scandinvaia appears to include data from as far south as Wienna and Paris, and it does NOT include the North European country Iceland with its COLD trend. Furthermore, it seems that the averaging method is higly influenting the IPCC outcome.

We have a HUGE area from 10W-40E north of 55N where I illustrate NO SIGN og GW from ORIGINAL DATA.

SO when influding down to 48N suddenly we have markedly GW signal? Honestly it looks strange, but its true we need to go further into this, further than the original Watts article on which i based my article.

But CM: It seems that you dont see a HUGE difference between IPCC, CRU etc and then a sceptical site

WE sceptics right away are open to admit if faults are made change athem and even withdraw in case of errors. In other words Sceptics play open and honest.

This is the HUGE difference to CRU, IPCC etc.
GLASNOST was achieved 20 years ago in the Soviet. The GLASNOST has not been possible yet in GISS, CRU, IPCC.

Even hough errors where made, there would be no sceptics if the IPCC played open and honest. Errors are ok, Lies are not.

K.R. Frank Lansner


I agree with CM.

If the two graphs do not closely resemble each other in some detail - then clearly we are not seeing 2 measures of exactly the same thing.

Your explanation makes sense CM.

The comments to this entry are closed.