It seems like eons ago since the last time I posted anything regarding our climate. And, what I’m about to post isn’t going to be news to many of the readers here. Still, as I’m now cross-posting to my Facebook page, sort of, I may reach more readers and cause more people to know the absolute charade “climate science” has become.
Today, Breitbart has this ….. my bold …..
To paraphrase the immortal words of Britney Spears, “Oops, climate scientists did it again!”
The award-winning scientist responsible for creating, collecting, and maintaining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) data archive, John Bates, recently disclosed leading NOAA’s climate scientists violated the agency’s rules, rushing to publication data which had yet to be tested and confirmed in order to influence the outcome of the Paris climate negotiations in 2015.
In a second breach of agency protocol, the scientists involved, led by Tom Karl, failed to properly archive and store their datasets for testing and public disclosure.
Subsequently, some of the original datasets were lost when the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure.
Karl, et al.’s 2015 “pause busting” research purported to show, contrary to every temperature dataset in existence at the time, Earth had not experienced an 18-year pause in rising temperatures, claiming instead everyone else’s data had been wrong and temperatures had continued to rise at an alarming rate right along with carbon-dioxide levels. As Bates put it, Karl’s team put their “thumb on the scale” to produce the results they wanted.
Much of the climate science community became suspicious of Karl’s claims over the months after the study was released, when it was discovered in the words of David Rose in the Daily Mail, “[Karl, et al.] took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.” As a result, the ocean temperature dataset used by Karl exaggerated the warming.
When you take good data and mix it with bad data and then average it, you no more produce reliable results than adding muddy river water to purified bottle water produces safe drinking water.
Karl’s actions show climate scientists wedded to the theory humans are causing catastrophic climate change learned nothing from the Climategate scandal of 2009. In Climategate, hacked e-mail exchanges between prominent climate scientists advising world leaders on climate policy exposed the scientists behaving badly.
The scientists involved used a “trick” to remove inconvenient data from their datasets to “hide the decline,” in a critical set of proxy temperatures. In addition, the e-mails showed they collaborated to persecute and have fired an editor of a prominent climate science journal who allowed articles questioning the extent of humanity’s role in global warming to be published.
The e-mails also showed the scientists actively sought to avoid releasing their taxpayer-funded data to other researchers and government bodies with oversight responsibility for testing and confirmation.
In the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, in order to ensure scientific integrity and regain the public’s trust, scientific bodies called on scientists to allow access to their raw data, assumptions, methodologies, and software and to promptly and completely respond to all Freedom of Information Act and government requests for information.
Karl and his team not only violated NOAA’s own protocols, they also ignored all the suggestions made by the scientific community to improve transparency and accountability for research. When the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the committee with oversight over federally funded research, requested and eventually subpoenaed NOAA’s documentation for its pause-busting claims, NOAA refused to turn over all the materials requested, citing concerns about confidentiality and the integrity of the scientific process. New investigations are being launched into NOAA’s research in light of Bates’ disclosures.
Read the rest at the link above.
Ahh, good times, good times!!!! This is yet another example of why I’ve totally lost interest in the climate debate. None of the data is real. The people in charge of collecting, storing, and providing the data either eliminate the data which contradicts their world view, or they simply manipulate it to where it isn’t even close to reality.
To date, none of the temperature gathering institutions can demonstrate any veracity towards their stated notions on a “global temperature”. From NOAA, to GISS, to HADCrut, none of them can show any accuracy in determining a “global temp”. Even the satellite people, UAH, and RSS can’t demonstrate any accuracy. It’s all farcical.
More importantly, none of them can show a proper historical context and relationship to today’s readings towards any notion of a global time in our history. It simply cannot be done. It wasn’t until the mid-2000s that we even got some actual temp readings from our oceans of any relevant coverage. This earth’s surface is mostly water, and we are just now starting to get actual ocean surface temp readings with any sort of distribution and coverage. WTF are we talking about “global warming” when there is no context to an actual global temperature of our past? It’s all sophistry, based upon a hypothetical notion, taken as fact by a bunch of lunatics. Anyone doubting this are free to peruse my archived posts. At least in my mind, I’ve adequately demonstrated what I’ve just commented above. When the historical context is simplified and boiled down to its base, this is the only conclusion a rational person can have.
There are too many problems to have any degree of precision or even accuracy to overcome.
Land temperatures …….. well, golly, we don’t have the same temp stations as we did say 70 years ago. Sure, we have some which are the same, but, we have many which are not. Even the thermometers are not the same, and they don’t measure temperature the same. But, even if they did, it wouldn’t be right because the land area surrounding the thermometers are not the same. Of course, all of this is known, but, the lunatics have convinced themselves and many other people that they can create a formula which makes allowances for such incongruences. But, you can’t, because the incongruences are not the same. It’s supreme idiocy and hubris to believe one can do so.
What? Because a tree ring looked one way and an actual thermometer looks differently today we can be sure we have “global warming”? Are we f’n serious?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Get real. Oh, wait!!!! I know!!!!!! We have sediment!!!! Which, of course, in no way presents any sort of global coverage, but, ….. hey!!! We can average a couple of centuries and know the last 2 years were the hottest evuh!!!!! What idiot believes that?
But, then, we still don’t have good thermometer coverage in 3 continents of the world, so, there’s that. And, again, we have no good historical reference for most of our surface temps because, well, ……. oceans!!!!!!! What sort of stupid thinks 10% of something means 100% of the same something is trending in the same manner of the 10%, especially with something as dynamic as temperature?
But, that brings me to the satellite temps. They actually have the same problem, except more acutely, as one of the land temps. That is to say, their measuring devices are not the same. The way they interpret their measuring devices are not the same. They continually revise their interpretations, meaning, what we’ve taken for fact from the satellites today, will be done away with tomorrow, yet, they’ve somehow managed to make people believe they can make apples to apples comparisons with the satellite readings we have today with the satellite readings we had 35 years ago. Sure you can, buddy, sure. Now, just slip into this nice white jacket with the funny sleeves and everything will be okay. No, no, the belts make the outfit!!!! Don’t worry about the belts!!!!
It’s a farce. It’s always been a farce. Happily, I believe because of Trump’s election the farce will become more and more well known. Indeed, this story about NOAA has reached a much larger audience than the Climate-gate emails ever did. I believe very soon most people will come to regard the climate lunatics in the same way they now regard the “doomsday clock” “scientists”.