Temperaturskandale 2

Diverse — Drokles on February 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm

Jeg henvist for et par uger siden til Christoffer Booker, der skrev at der var blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Paraguay til Patagonien så de understøttede en fortælling om stigende temperaturer. Varmen kommer gerne, hvor ingen oplever den, hvorfor der nu også advokeres for den er sprunget i dybhavet. Og nu viser det sig tilsyneladende at der også er blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Arktis. Christoffer Booker skriver i Telegraph

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Og Selwyn Duke tilføjer på New American

One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that “consensus” itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked claim that “97 percent of scientists affirm anthropogenic global warming.” Even more significantly, however, citing scientific consensus is just a version of the argumentum ad populum fallacy — and it is a thoroughly unscientific appeal.

Late author Michael Crichton expressed this truth brilliantly in a 2003 Caltech lecture, saying, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” Crichton pointed out that consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one, stating that science “requires only one investigator who happens to be right.” He continued, “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

After providing numerous examples of castigated, consensus-condemned scientists who turned out to be right, Crichton cut to the matter’s heart, saying, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

In other words, when you have the facts, you present them. Consensus is something you talk about when you don’t have the facts.

This brings us to why the government is “adjusting” temperature data. Government climate models that had predicted climatic changes haven’t at all fit the facts of how the climate has changed, but the government still wants to use what they say about future climate to make today’s policy. So they need to change the “facts.”

And this data rape is no small matter. As meteorologist Anthony Watts told Fox News, “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data”

Joanna Nova giver et eksempel på hvorledes det britiske meteorologiske institut MET, arbejder kreativt med grafikken for at fremme deres fortælling.

1 Kommentar »

  1. [...] gerne, hvor ingen oplever den, hvorfor der nu også advokeres for den er sprunget i dybhavet. Et par uger senere viste det sig tilsyneladende at der også er blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Arktis. Nu [...]

    Pingback by Monokultur » Temperaturskandale 3 — May 9, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress