This post isn’t about our climate. But, then, my involvement in this discussion never was about our climate. Personally, I don’t care if we’re a degree, or two, or three warmer. I’ve always thought, and still do, that mankind would benefit more from a warmer world. And, this post isn’t really about calling anyone names. This post is really an appeal to the public and more specifically to people convinced CAGW is a correct hypothesis.
I’ve posted a couple of pictures and then a series of graphs, and a couple of quotes I thought pertinent. My thoughts at the bottom……..
“What traitors books can be! You think they’re backing you up, and they turn on you. Others can use them, too, and there you are, lost in the middle of the moor, in a great welter of nouns and verbs and adjectives.” – Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Part 2
“Its real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences.”
- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Part 3
“Those who tell the stories also hold the power.”—- Plato’s dictum
“Falsus in unum, falsus in omis”
Last 3 graphs and sources can be found here.
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”—- George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-four.
There are, of course, many more examples of revisions. But, I’d like to ask a question. What are the odds of this uniformly occurring? Now, I showed some examples of adjustments occurring in the “micro”, and this isn’t really the issue. What I’m referring to is the changes occurring in the “macro”. I accept that there have been some errors in recording our climate data. And, we should deal with these errors in one way or another. But, honestly, what are the odds of every time a significant adjustment is to be made, our climate community always show it better(milder climate, cooler) in the past and worse(hotter, higher sea level) towards the present? Why is it when we have obvious, and well agreed upon biases in our graphs which show more extreme weather towards the present we don’t attempt to deal with the discrepancies?…..Tornadoes and hurricanes, for example. We know they are biased to show less in the past and more towards the present simply because of observation techniques and technologies. But, we don’t attempt to adjust those. But in temperature observations, there are some dubious claims and dubious, unjustified adjustments. And they always work in one direction…. well two really, down in the past and up towards the present.
Last year, about August, I set out to try and find out our sea-level through our tidal gauges. I found that gauges which were showing a flattening or decreasing sea level were discontinued. The discontinuity and poor coverage made me stop. It wasn’t going to be possible to determine (with any certitude) the sea-level anomaly. Sure, I could have cherry-picked the data to show whatever I wanted, but, I deemed that …….. immoral. Imagine my surprise to find 6 months later, some of the tidal stations which had been discontinued for over 2 years suddenly had data……. all showing increases in sea level from the time they started recording again!! Which, in spite of the latest adjustments, is still incongruent with the satellites! What are the odds? GISS has an algorithm they apply, and the algorithm has been shown and people like Steve Mosher approve of it. But, again, if it is a proper algorithm, what are the odds that it would consistently lower past temps and raise present temps? HadCrut is on it’s 4th version. Again, we see the same dynamic! What are the odds? And now Envisat has found an error and a couple of adjustments and suddenly it conforms to Jason I….. sort of. (I’ll make another post on that specific instance in the near future.) But, we see the exact same dynamic! What are the odds? Are we to believe they just now found an error after 10 years?…… knowing that they were not in step with Jason I the entire time? On that particular instance, they seem to be asking us to believe they are incompetent rather than intentionally altering the sea level record.
I do want to make something very clear. I am not calling all of these people involved liars or that they are all intentionally deceiving people.
We hear what we expect to hear and see what we expect to see. I think many of our scientists are seeing things and then pursuing an answer to fit what they saw into their view of what they believe is suppose to be happening. Nothing is more evidenced of this than the alternating cold winters causing more and less snow and cold in one place causing warm in another. For those who still don’t know, this winter(Dec, Jan, Feb) was an unusually cold winter, except in a small part of the globe.
I am sure some of the adjustments we see are legitimate and proper. I am equally sure others are not. One or two instances…. sure, that’s believable. But, in the aggregate, it simply isn’t credible. And, this is the crux of the problem. I know there is, and I participate in, a sort of team sport when discussing climate. When something occurs which seems to validate the skeptical position, skeptics say “Hooray for our team! We told you so!“ And, the people alarmed about CO2 and whatnot engage in the same. It is human nature, I’m afraid. But, what we’re seeing here, is something more sinister than any carbon tax or coal mining could ever become. And, this is something I hope people of all persuasions and advocacy can see and understand. What both skeptics and alarmists must realize by now, is that we don’t carry the political power we imagine we do. Sure, us conservative skeptics forced Romney and Gingrich to reverse their previous statements. But, don’t believe for a second as soon as it becomes politically expedient both would turn their positions on a dime. As to the alarmists, I know Barrack has been a disappointment. Oh, sure, he’s playing up to you now, but he doesn’t give a rats ass about CO2, warming or sea levels. And this is what I’m on about. We can not engage in history revisionism! A fluid and dynamic history is the destruction of a free society. For the alarmists of the socialist persuasion, understand that the body politic only understands power and control. How it occurs is of little concern for them. To approve, affirm, or even silently allow this madness is to supply the tools for our own enslavement! We’re fitting our own chains!
Stories of history and battle and war is one thing. It requires perspective and context. Any person of even average intelligence knows there are two sides to a story. But there is no perspective or context to going from 49 to 47. It, either, was 49 or it wasn’t. 1934 was either warmer than 1998 or it wasn’t. When objective observations are subjective, we’ve lost every thing. No one can know or calculate anything because the start point is always subject to change! A while back, I calculated the warming expected on a doubling of CO2 (from 280ppm) based on the observed temperature change and the already experienced CO2 increases. It isn’t valid now because of the changes made to the temp record. Nor, is anyone else’s calculations based on observation! There is no science without observation. There is no observation if the observed is subject to change. There is nothing but the present, and a future as dark as the worst of us can imagine.
This isn’t about climate, this is about humanity.