Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
A global warming skeptic thinks he has figured out why the computer models don’t match the thermometer outside – the government data is wrong. Not accidentally wrong, but intentionally wrong.
According to his January 19, 2014 blog post, the US government lowered the temperature readings from years gone by but left alone current temperature readings. That makes it look as if the Earth was colder in the past and getting warmer nowadays. They converted a 90-year cooling trend into global warming by faking the data.
The most graphic illustration is the fifth chart down the page, an animated chart of US Temperature that shows how changing the data changes the result. Look for this chart on the website and watch as it changes.
Next thing you know, you’ll be saying that the Government is using the executive branch to stifle speech.
but, but, but, the folks over at MN Progressive Project claim:
“The problem is that the climate denial cranks get more coverage than they deserve. The science shows that climate change is real. By science I mean peer-reviewed scientific study. There is no peer-reviewed scientific data that casts any doubt at all.”
These are DG’s partners in ignorance – hell they’ve even started a petition to get the right wing Strib to stop printing letters from “deniers”.
If MPP didn’t exist, I’d have to invent them.
The only unambiguous measure of climate change is the NOAA measure of atmospheric CO2, which rises slowly year after year as we burn more fossil fuels. The AGW fanatics would love to use this as a proxy for global climate change, but they can’t. It doesn’t match up well with global temperature unless you massage the global temp. data. So the global temp data is massaged. In the last two decades I’ve seen the Medieval warm period, a scientific and historical fact described in reams of peer-reviewed studies, disappear completely. Not because of new evidence, but because it didn’t fit into the AGW fanatics timeline. How could there be a ‘Medieval warm period’ if atmospheric CO2 was lower in Medieval times than it is now?
Progressives don’t support AGW theory because it’s science. If they were interested in science, they would support nuclear power and GM agriculture. Progressives support AGW theory because when it is written into public policy it gives people like them control of everything — what kind of light bulbs you can buy, how many cars you are allowed to have (if any), even how much education your children are allowed to have.
Anybody who’s been following the AGW kerfluffle has known about this for some time, and NASA and NOAA have been quite up front about their “adjustments” to the raw data sets. Well, up front in the sense that they tell you they’re doing corrections, not the bias that they’ve been applying.
The reasoning that they use is upfront, but also wrong since they apply only the factors that would raise the current temperature rather than any that might lower their data. To put it in a nutshell, they’re trying to interpolate the temperature since the network of sensors is larger these days, but they’re not making corrections for the the increased urban areas and other factors.
The interesting thing is that they’ve completely buried the old raw data sets and it’s essentially impossible to get them anymore. You have to go through the laborious process of rebuilding them from scratch, as several skeptics have begun to do.
Of course there’s no peer reviewed data which cast doubt on the thesis. You don’t peer review the fact that you conspired on email to suppress other views. Duh. :^)
Used to be that the left understood a little bit about what groupthink was. No more.
“Used to be that the left understood a little bit about what groupthink was.”
They understand it perfectly well. Knowing what the right opinion is and publicly expressing it is a life-and-death survival skill for bolsheviks.
PM says: “If they [progressives] were interested in science, they would support nuclear power and GM agriculture.”
Any reasonable scientist will tell you that there is no evidence that GM food causes any harm. GM farming is our only realistic hope to feed the world’s growing population.
Any reasonable scientist will tell you that the earth’s atmosphere and climate is being changed by greenhouse gasses and that human activity is at least partly to blame. The continued release of greenhouse gasses threatens to alter the climate in very negative ways.
Two completely opposed groups are prepared to ignore reasonable scientists, accuse them of conspiracy and pay-offs, blame the media, politicians and big business, and act irrationally. I hope the climate change denialists and the Frankenfood scare-mongers take a moment to consider the perspective that the other battle vs. science should give them.
Just kidding. Go back to being irrational. You have the right to ignore the evidence, whatever it may cost the rest of us.
“Any reasonable scientist …”
Yeah, too bad they don’t have the data to back it up, and they never provide conditions to falsify their “reasonable” theories. Go “science”!
Any reasonable scientist will tell you that the earth’s atmosphere and climate is being changed by greenhouse gasses and that human activity is at least partly to blame. The continued release of greenhouse gasses threatens to alter the climate in very negative ways.
This is where the ‘reasonable scientists, become fortune tellers, Emery.
Of course human activity is responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO2. This is what they measure at the NOAA station. The question is how much the additional CO2 ‘threatens’ the climate. This is pure guesswork, the climate scientists’ models are unable to accurately describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 at concentrations we are likely to see in the next century. They haven’t got a clue. The cannot correlate CO2 PPM to a global temperature. If you know a climate scientist, ask them if they can do this.
Going from an atmospheric concentration of 400 PPM of CO2 to rising sea levels or more severe storms is not science, it is guesswork and circular reasoning. Science is observe, hypothesize, experiment, revise and repeat until a causal relationship is found. Climate science does not work that way.
Emery, given that 32 of 34 cutting edge models overestimate actual warming, generally by about a factor of ten, tell me exactly how we know that the greenhouse effect will inevitably change climate in negative ways?
Put gently, climatology, in its standard form, has far less credence than the econometric models which always generate “unexpected results” with each economic report over the past five years. It’s time to dispose of the standard analysis, I think.
Bikebubba wrote “It’s time to dispose of the standard analysis, I think.”
That won’t work for them, Bikebubba. The purpose of the AGW sham isn’t to save the planet, it’s to put the government in complete control of economic growth worldwide, to restrict the growth of free-market economies by making them use more expensive sources of energy while the poorer countries are allowed to ‘catch up’ to them by using cheap, dirty energy sources.
If climatology doesn’t support this agenda, it ain’t worth nothing to to the Leftists and their redistributionist dreams.
Powhatan is 100% correct. “Standard” climatology is not science. It is politics. Therefore my conclusion is exactly the same; discard it. :^)