Temperature Trends

Temperature Record Chicanery: An Overhyped Scandal

The real scandal is climate model failure

|

Global Warming Question
dreamstime

Welcome to the most policitized area of science: climate change research. Accusations that climate scientists are manipulating global temperature data in order to bolster claims for catastrophic man-made warming are flying thick and fast through the Internet. The latest round was set off by journalist Christopher Booker in his article, "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever," over at The Telegraph. Unfortunately, such claims are given more credence since the infamous "hide the decline" emails were leaked during the Climategate fiasco.

In his article Booker is citing statistical work by climate change skeptic Paul Homewood who runs the science blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat. Homewood has analyzed changes made to temperature data series from weather stations in South America and the Arctic from Greenland east to Siberia. Those weather stations are part of the Global Historical Climate Network and are adjusted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to create one of the leading global temperature data series. Homewood notes that the raw data have been adjusted, which is not at all surprising since the data are affected over the decades by shifts in station locations, instrument changes, and urban heat islands.

Very generally, in order to detect such changes, climate researchers look for abrupt shifts in the temperatures recorded at each weather station which are presumed to be artifacts rather than actual temperatures.  These shifts are adjusted via an algorithm using data from nearby stations. What Homewood found is that a lot of the past data have been modified in a mostly cooling direction. Lower past temperatures would produce a steeper global warming trend over the past century or so. No doubt the researchers who fear the consequences of man-made warming are greatly edified when their adjustments produce the temperature trend that they expect. Everyone is suspectible to confirmation bias. But scandalously suspicious? Perhaps not.

Let's forget the longer term global record for now. What do the main temperature datasets say about recent warming? The instrumental temperature records including the GISS dataset, the British HadCRUT4, and the NOAA NCDC find that average global temperature increased. GISS is the highest reporting a rate between 1951 and 2012 of 0.124 C° ± 0.020 per decade. NCDC finds the rate is 0.118 C° ± 0.021, and HadCRUT4 is lowest at 0.106 C° ± 0.027 per decade. The per decade trends for the period after 1979 is 0.161 C° ± 0.033 for GISS; 0.151 C° ± 0.037 for NCDC; and 0.155 C° ± 0.033 for HadCRUT4.

The period after 1979 is relevant not only because global average temperatures seemed to have jumped in the 1970s, but because the instrumental record can be compared to the satellite temperature record. Two groups process the data (a.k.a. "adjusted") from the NOAA satellites to produce separate records. As frequent Reason readers know I tend to follow the results from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. UAH climatologists who are quite skeptical of predictions of catastrophic climate change report that since 1979 the atmosphere has warmed at rate of 0.14 C° per decade. Using satellite data, the private research company Remote Sensing Systems finds that the atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.13 C° per decade. Interestingly, the RSS reports that the models most closely match the satellite temperature trends for the arctic region.

Global Average Temperature Increase1951-2012 per decade rate1979-2012/14 per decade rate
GISS0.124 C°0.161 C°
NCDC0.118 C°0.151 C°
HadCRUT40.106 C°0.155 C°
UAH 0.140 C°
RSS 0.130  C°

To recap: All of the global temperature records find that the atmosphere has warmed in recent decades. The difference between the high and the low trends in the datasets since 1979 is 0.03 C° per decade. Summed over the past 35 years, temperatures have increased by at most 0.56 C° and at least by 0.455 C°, that is to say, a difference of about one-tenth of a degree Celsius. Additionally, it appears that global average temperature jumped to a new higher level in the late 1990s and has more or less "paused" since then. This is why so many climatologists repeat the mantra that the hottest years in the instrumental record have all occurred after 1998. 

Nevertheless whatever suspect "adjustments" that may have been made they have barely changed the trend in any of the datasets.

In an effort to allay "hide the decline" concerns about how adjustments are made to raw temperature data, an international consortium of climatologists have suggested that the algorithms used to make the adjustments be benchmarked. Basically, the International Surface Temperature Initiative would generate synthetic climate datasets in which the "true" temperatures and the errors and discontinuities are both known. Then adjustment algorithms would be run against them to see which comes closest to reproducing the "true" dataset.

The real scandal, if there is one, is that nearly all of the climate computer models run hotter than these empirical trends. As the researchers at RSS observe, "Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation." But the folks at RSS significantly further note, "The troposphere has not (emphasis RSS) warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict." To illustrate this last problem, RSS created the several plots below.  

Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case.  Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

RSS Global
RSS
RSS Tropics
RSS
RSS North Pole
RSS

RSS speculates that the models get it wrong because they fail to properly take into account things like volcanic aerosols, stratospheric cooling, and/or cloud feedbacks. Of greater possible consequence is that the models may be wrong on climate sensitivity—they estimate a bigger temperature response to a given level of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere than may be warranted. And, of course, the models did not predict the current "pause" in global temperatures.

A final plea: Whenever you encounter information that confirms what you already believe, be especially skeptical of it.

Disclosure: I am not a member of "Team Hot" nor of "Team Not."

Advertisement

NEXT: As You Gather Your Tax Documents, the IRS Rehires Tax Dodgers and Data-Snoopers it Fired

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks, Ron. Very helpful.

    1. What Restoras said.

      1. I betcha Shreek, Tony and Jackass have already chimed in by saying stuff like “believing in CO2”, “the earth IS a green house”, and some bullshit about consensus.

    2. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

      http://www.navjob.com

  2. I am not a member of “Team Hot” nor of “Team Not.”

    That would make this use of “unfortunately” fairly bizarre:

    Unfortunately, such claims are given more credence since the infamous “hide the decline” emails were leaked during the Climategate fiasco.

    1. Reading charitably, Ron could be lamenting the fact that “good science” is being called into question due to the unrelated bad behavior of the “hide the decline” folks.

        1. I have a “citation needed” for the unrelated premise.

          The entire climate community seems interrelated.

        2. I suppose, but the “unfortunately”, as I read it, can modify “such claims were given more credence” and that’s about it, since the rest is a dependent clause.

          Now, its only “unfortunate” if such claims shouldn’t have been given more credence. And that’s really the question: how deep does the rot run? Saying its “unfortunate” that people are skeptical of adjusted data strikes me as, well, assuming the conclusion.

          I also tend to believe that what people actually write or say reveals what they really think.

          1. I though it revealed more what they wanted you to believe.

    2. AD: The “unfortunately” refers to the fact that the incident occurred, not that the emails were leaked. All scientific research should be done in the sunlight. See my 2009 article, “The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate.”

      1. I have a question Ron, if you happen to read this.

        Has there ever even been any credible speculation on who was behind Climategate?

        All the ‘investigations’ etc. were about cleansing the scientists; not figuring out who breached CRU. They never said it came from outside, inside, phishing, nothing.

        To me it seemed an inside job.

        1. Not only has there been speculation, there are some rather high profile individuals who know who is behind the document release. And it is an insider. The person responsible (known as Mr. FOIA) will come public when he is able.

  3. How about open source climatology?

    1. All science should be open source.

      Science required repeatability. You cant do that if you dont know what is going on under the hood.

        1. Im agreeing with you.

          I think.

          1. You are. It’s time to clear the skies.

        2. PL: Actually the field is belatedly moving in that direction (thanks in no little part to the complaints of skeptics). See the benchmarking project I mention in the post.

          1. How did it not start that way?

            ITS FUCKING SCIENCE. YOU DONT HIDE DATA OR ALGORITHMS IN SCIENCE.

            1. Maybe you do if you are more concerned with a political agenda than with the actual science.

              1. Which means we can ignore anything those people say about science.

                I dont see a reason to give them a benefit of the doubt because they are opening things now.

              2. Or if you’re afraid someone else will take credit for the work you’ve done yourself.

            2. Exactly.

              When there has to be super-secret sciencey consensus but nobody gets to see the data and the models, you don’t have science. And if your hypothesis ends up predicting something that doesn’t happen it shows you got it wrong. back to the drawing table because you obviously don’t understand what’s going on.

              I am biased that way with an engineering background and having done a lot of computer modeling of complex systems. My bullshit detector goes off the chart when people tell me they are still right when they got it all wrong. And I hold nothing but contempt for people that fake shit so they can sell their tripe.

              This movement is a cult. The solutions are anti-capitalist psuedo-marxist bullshit that would allow an elite few to get stinking rich sending the rest of us to the poor house. I pass.

              1. To be fair, very few researchers in any scientific discipline want to sit around replicating results. It doesn’t lead to publications in prestigious journals or accolades in the press. Funding agencies are also unlikely to fund such research. The reproducibility issue is not just a problem in climate science. It’s a problem in pretty much every scientific field. The incentives to replicate simply aren’t there.

                1. It does if you prove someone wrong.

                  Problem is the overwhelming majority of the time you just end up confirming their results to within the margin of error

                2. Excellent post DJK. I’d like to add there is also a terrible bias against publishing negative results, as if they were less valid somehow.

                  1. Yea. I’m not saying that what’s in my post is the way it should be. It’s just the way that it currently is. The current research climate does have some positive features. Research pace would certainly be slowed if we painstakingly tried to replicate every important result. Of course, this has nothing to do with the bias against publishing negative results. I cannot for the life of me understand why that is not done.

                    1. I once read a very old book about science in general that discouraged the publishing of negative results because it would ‘discourage subsequent investigation’. As if a positive result couldn’t do that.

                      The ‘pace’ research seems to be going at is worthless given the amount of crap that comes out. I’d rather go slow and get it right.

          2. It’s hard to recapture lost credibility. Frankly, I’m going to require more evidence to believe many climatologists in the future. The politicization of the science is heartbreaking.

            1. That lost credibility is the fatal problem imo. In almost any other organization, the demonstrated problems would/should result in a complete overhaul. Fire every single person above the level of secretary – and rehire from scratch. There is zero possibility that those who created these mistakes/frauds/etc will be the ones who can/will fix them.

              Until that massive overhaul of people happens, there is no reason to pay any attention to what any of the existing people have to say.

              1. Or at least until Mark Steyn wins his counter-suit against Michael Mann and the zealots have to think twice before taking skeptics to court for “denial” or “defamation.”

                Who is worse, climate zealots intent on nothing less than bringing capitalism to heel worldwide, or public union leadership?

      1. One of the things I had hoped the internet would enable and encourage would be that all science would be much more open: all clinical trials would be posted before proceeding, even if embargoed until completion to avoid fouling the results, and similarly for all predictions, surveys, etc — no holding back ones with unexpected or inexplicable results.

        I wonder how much of all this climate science political correctness would still exist if the initial studies had been done in such an open manner. It’s kinda late now; no one who wants to get on tenure track willd are buck the system. But if they had published contrary studies back in the beginning, the dogma might not be so sticky right now, and a lot of the suspicion which fuels the partisan political correctness might never have gotten so bad.

        1. I don’t know if people are all that concerned about tenure. There’s definitely a movement within the academic community (at least in the physical and life sciences) to move toward more open literature. The PLoS (Public Library of Science) journals are open and becoming more high profile. Cheap storage space is encouraging people to submit their datasets, not just their analysis of them. And so on.

          1. PLoS is great. I think the movement to open source has something to do with how overrated the ‘top-tier’ journals like Nature are. Nature has an unsubtle political agenda and is littered is pop-science like fMRI studies.

            1. Used to have a sub to Science. Pissed me off that I had to pay for AAAS membership along with it, and I got tired of the overbearing political correctness. The final straw was when they implemented online reading which required some custom app to install on my computer. At least nature can be read in standard HTML.

              1. It doesn’t help that journals like Science, Nature, etc have pretty lucrative subscription deals with large research institutions (universities, national labs, industrial concerns). The major driver in the adoption of the open source model, if it happens, will result from backlash by these organizations. I’m thinking something along the lines of the University of California’s open war with Nature. Big player saying fuck you to the publishing model.

            2. I don’t know. I think Science and Nature publish a lot of crap. But that’s due to their basic philosophy of taking results from any field. It makes it very difficult for the editorial staff to do their jobs properly. A particle physicist will not be a good editor of a paper in cell biology, no matter how good a team of reviewers in assembled. The same complaint could be lodged against lower-tier but still respected journals like PNAS. Or even PLoS One. Too broad of subject matter.

              I really love Nature’s model with the just under Nature-level journals like Nature Chemistry, Nature Structural Biology, etc. It lets researchers publish in top-tier but focused journals which don’t suffer from the problems outline above to the same extent.

          2. What I meant was registering a survey or study, especially clinical trials, before commencing data collection, so adverse or embarrassing results couldn’t be swept under the rug.

  4. Unfortunately, such claims are given more credence

    It’s not unreasonable to assume that like the nation’s police forces, a particular culture withing Global Warming science is drawing in certain types of researchers.

  5. Homewood notes that the raw data have been adjusted, which is not at all surprising since the data are affected over the decades by shifts in station locations, instrument changes, and urban heat islands.

    Odd, though, that most to all the adjustments are to reduce older temperatures (and to increase more recent ones). If you are adjusting for urban heat islands, this seems backwards to me. And why wouldn’t the rest be more or less randomized?

    We know HADCRUT4 data was corrupted due to the original ClimateGate emails. Comparing GISS to HADCRUT4 and finding them comparable makes it even more likely GISS has been corrupted, rather than the opposite, doesn’t it. Unless the damage done to HADCRUT$ has been fixed, but I thought that wasn’t possible as the original data was dumped. Feel free to update me on the status of the ClimateGate data, Ron, honestly I haven’t looked at it in awhile.

    That leaves some other datasets that also seem in line. But, if I know/suspect that two datasets are corrupted, then I have to wonder about the others, don’t I?

    The problem is, given the proven dishonesty of major climate researchers, where do you set your feet? What data can you trust now?

    1. Ron believes whatever stops the cool kids from mocking him.

      1. L,J: With just what part of my post do you disagree? And why?

          1. I think Pro Lib said it best:

            “It’s hard to recapture lost credibility.”

            Bailey supported carbon taxes in the past. I’m still assuming pigovian tendencies.

            1. I’m not upset with Ron or his opinions; it’s all these shenanigans behind the science that irks me. I do think keeping an eye on the climate is a valid use of our time, but if the information we’re receiving is corrupted by biases that have nothing to do with reality, then I’ve got a problem with that.

              1. Im with you, the science stuff bothers me way more. I just keep an eye on Bailey when it comes to proposals.

                Im still leery about Stossel. I remember him from the 1980s. He hasnt quite earned my trust yet.

                If Bailey becomes a diehard Coasean, I might start trusting him about 2030.

                1. Im still leery about Stossel.

                  HEY!

                2. r: I am a diehard Coasean. See my “Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?” If you’ve time, please read the whole thing. Here’s a relevant excerpt:

                  The trick is identifying those who are actually causing climate damage and those who are being harmed by it. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase argued in his seminal 1960 article, “The Problem of Social Cost,”[PDF] assigning property rights solves this sort of puzzle by enabling people to settle the issue of liability and payment for damages. Notionally, in the case of global warming, people would be assigned property rights to the atmosphere, leaving would-be polluters to negotiate payments with these owners for the right to emit carbon dioxide. But as Coase acknowledged, sometimes the transactions costs?meaning the costs of identifying who’s harmed, the amount of the damages, and the costs of adjudication?would simply to be too great to be practical.

              2. Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate Ron’s work on this.

                I just don’t think it quite closes the loop on a couple of issues:

                What’s our benchmark? Our “gold standard”? And why? I agree with the call for the benchmark dataset, but its a massive indictment of “climate science” that such a thing has to be created now, at this point, isn’t it?

                More narrowly, for the dataset at issue, what’s the reason for those adjustments, and does that reason make sense and actually explain the adjustments?

        1. Ron, for me this is just like a Brian Williams story. When you find out that someone has been lying out their asses, you don’t believe a word they say.

          You seem to believe that although a ton of the data has been manipulated, we can still believe some of it. This is not in evidence.

          Your placing the statement of “not a member of “Team Hot” nor of “Team Not.” leaves the impression that you still trust people who have been shown to have lied over and over again.

          It also places people who have not believed in junk, political “science” on the same moral plane as the fucking liars. Members of a TEAM instead of people seeking truth.

          So you are not a member of “Team Hot OR Team Truth”.

          1. MG: In the context of highly politicized science and I doing the best I can to figure out and honestly report what is going on with the climate. My balance-of-the-evidence (not beyond-a-reasonable-doubt) conclusion is that global warming could become a significant problem later in this century. That conclusion does NOT mandate carbon rationing as the only policy.

            1. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would say you must be missing some of the evidence.

      2. Yeah, clearly that’s what he’s doing. He couldn’t possibly have reached the conclusions he has based on his extensive reporting on the subject. The only possible motivation for anyone who slightly disagrees with you is cocktail parties.

  6. Disclosure: I am not a member of “Team Hot” nor of “Team Not.”

    I am a member of “Team Don’t Condemn Billions to Poverty Because You Hate Capitalism Want to ‘Stop’ Global Warming.”

    1. Well I messed up the strikethrough. But to be clear, the “You” was the general “You,” not to RB.

    2. How about the “team hot, but there is no way we are going to do anything about it without creating much bigger problems and trampling all over people’s rights and it still probably wouldn’t work anyway” team? That team doesn’t get too much coverage in this whole debate.

  7. You know who else labeled concerted schemes to steal (money, data, liberty) from certain groups of people fake scandals?

    1. The Federal Reserve System?

    2. The Leftoid Matrix

  8. Judith Curry did her best to tell everyone to settle down with the accusations when she ran this piece yesterday from 3 members of Berkely Earth.

    “In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it’s possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it’s possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It’s minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/02…..ture-data/

    1. Yes, and since you’re a member of team ‘I HATE CAPITALISM!’, nobody cares what you think or post.

    2. That quote needs to have [citation needed] tattooed on its forehead.

      1. Curry is pretty trustworthy.

        1. …and a former warmer. She was big into hurricane research about a decade or so ago. Judith finally figured out that measurement discrepancies between different periods was driving most of the “observed” changes. It was also shown that things like total storm power had not changed much, so she finally gave up. Now I think she is pretty balanced, thoughtful.

      2. That quote needs to have [citation needed] tattooed on its forehead.

        It’s by the actual statisticians that run the BEST project. They are a valid authority on this matter. Hell, Steven Mosher is a former skeptic who wrote the book on Climategate. Literally.

  9. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………
    visit this web-site…
    ???????????? http://www.netcash50.com

  10. Very generally, in order to detect such changes, climate researchers look for abrupt shifts in the temperatures recorded at each weather station which are presumed to be artifacts rather than actual temperatures. These shifts are adjusted via an algorithm using data from nearby stations.

    Okay Ron, why are all of the adjustments in the direction to support the theory? Why would there not have been some times that the data needed to be adjusted the other way? The data was adjusted to make the theory look more plausible every single time and consistently around 35%. So it just happened to be that the temps always went the same direction at the same percent? That is just confirmation bias.

    Come on Ron. Really. Is there any explanation you won’t believe? How outrageous does something have to be before you stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt?

    1. Ron, John said it pretty well too.

      1. This bothers me. If I were to do such an analysis in my field, any paper I wrote about it would be rightly rejected. The reviewers would ask that I use the raw data, throw on error bars, and be done with it. Some of the data points would look crappy because of the large errors. That’s fine – people will make their own conclusions. Also, large error bars on the crappy data points helps with statistical analysis. When doing least squares, those points will have low weights and won’t have much impact on the extracted warming trend. Which is what you want from crappy data. Maybe I’m missing something here, because I would consider this an egregious mistake for an undergrad, let alone a tenured researcher.

    2. Okay Ron, why are all of the adjustments in the direction to support the theory?

      They aren’t. Skeptic blogs just cherry-pick the ones that are.

      Most of Africa, for instance, is massively cooled by temperature record homogenization.

      1. Then why use the adjustments at all. If the output is trivial then what’s the value.

        1. Yes. It is crudely obvious that these “adjustments” are so much an attempt to muddy the waters of this whole subject. You can’t pretend to be empirical and objective while pulling numbers out of your ass (unless you attempt to just bully everybody into accepting your claims uncritically).

          At that point, you are not bearing fidelity to reality and science, but to an old-fashioned mystic dogma. Climate science is where the old left–the rationalistic Marxists–are making their last stand.

  11. When every part of a data set can be presumed to have public policy implications, both by scientists and the general public, I don’t suppose it’s possible for scientists not to seem biased.

    The skeptics are politically motivated, too.

    I wish the policy implications were more disconnected in people’s minds from the data. It’s like things were just before we invaded Iraq, when whether we were going to war, in the public’s mind, was inextricably linked to whether Saddam Hussein had WMD. The possibility of him having WMD and us still not going to war didn’t even seem to be under consideration.

    If we don’t want the public to implement whatever anti-libertarian solution to global warming/climate change, we need to unlink the data from the policy prescriptions. Otherwise, if and when the data becomes indisputable in the voters’ minds, their default policy prescriptions will all be anti-libertarian.

    How many average American voters know about Australia repealing their carbon tax and why? If we want them to understand that any policy prescriptions that adversely impact our standard of living won’t work and won’t stand, I don’t care as much about what the scientific data says either way.

    1. There are two lines of argument. First, there is the fact that the theory is likely not true or if true we are unlikely to suffer catastrophic effects. Second, even if the theory is true, no one has yet proposed any practical means of preventing it. It does no good for one country to reduce its admissions and sign itself up for poverty if other countries do not and get rich as a result.

      You have to argue both. You can’t give up and let them get away with assuming the theory is false because that allows them to appeal to people’s romantic notions about doing something. And of course you must constantly point out how damaging and pointless their proposed solutions are. You shouldn’t concede either argument.

      1. “Second, even if the theory is true, no one has yet proposed any practical means of preventing it. It does no good for one country to reduce its admissions and sign itself up for poverty if other countries do not and get rich as a result.”

        President Obama might agree with that statement.

        That’s why he’s been promising to pursue a wording of an international agreement at the Paris conference in December of this year that, according to him, won’t require Congress’ participation. Hell, he made that statement about Congress’ approval being unnecessary before the midterms!

        “The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Leadership of the negotiations is yet to be determined.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2…..Conference

        Obama can be that leader. Yes we can!

        1. Which of course is complete horse shit and will never happen. No country has a reason to follow that. The best course of action is to ignore it while everyone else follows it allowing you to get the benefits of reduced CO2 while sticking everyone else with the cost. So there is no way you will ever keep people from cheating and ignoring such a treaty.

          1. I hope you’re right, John.

            But Obama is an economic illiterate, and he implemented ObamaCare despite public opposition.

            Germany is already known to cut off its nose to spite their face on energy.

            http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0…..z3RSCdfMsX

            And nothing the French do surprises me anymore.

            I hope you’re right, but I also hope we don’t have to learn the hard way.

            1. There will of course be countries that are idiotic enough to follow it into poverty. We might be one of them. That won’t matter. That will just make the countries who cheat that much better off for doing so. It won’t make the solution any more viable.

              1. The collectivists actually convinced themselves that they could make big money selling this green shit to people because they felt that way. Unfortunately when reality bit them in the ass it only served to make a few well connected people stinking rich, give already oppressive nanny-state governments even more power to lord over the serfs, and to make the common man’s plight harder while crushing economies. The central planners figured they could ignore the laws of economic and reality, but they are finding out that reality has a way of making even the most deluded fool have to catch on.

            2. financial times? ROFL. That propaganda rag is a joke. Here is the reality of Germanys very successful energy policies:

              http://energytransition.de/201…..m-fiction/

              1. That linked article certainly reads like propaganda.

          2. Agreed re: the game theory considerations. What I find absolutely astonishing about the climate talks is that we don’t just go tell the third worlders to go fuck themselves when they bring up subsidies. Sure, we’re offloading the costs of our industrial processes on you. You’ve also benefited to the tune of trillions of dollars from the increased standards of living you got from our technological advances. Yet no one seems to mention this.

            1. Yeah, people like to ignore positive externalities for some reason. Sure there are many costs to using fossil fuels for most of our energy. There are also huge benefits to just about everyone in the world.

              1. I’ve never seen a study on the matter, but I could only assume that it would conclude that the benefits have far outweighed the costs (and might even continue to do so in the doom and gloom warming scenarios).

        2. BTW, a STATE is presuming to square the circle:

          “In a move that could shape California’s climate policies for decades to come, legislators on Tuesday introduced a series of bills that would slash oil use in half by 2050, mandate the use of renewable power for 50 percent of the state’s electricity and force California’s massive public retirement funds to dump coal company stocks.”
          http://www.sfgate.com/business…..073418.php

          1. Isn’t that delightful?

            They’ll blame the economic drag on the Republicans, too.

          2. Out of state utilities that have lines running west, rejoice!

      2. You have to argue both.

        Agreed. The whole notion of ‘just reduce it to simpler terms’ is a self-acknowledged monumental failing of modern science.

        It’s a childish mentality where you can discover or create facts in isolation *with absolutely zero consequences*. It’s when right and correct are embodied in the same fact or path, but it’s a rarity.

      1. The skeptics are politically motivated, too.

        Sure. Which is why we all need to resist confirmation bias. I get it.

        I’m waiting for a plausible explanation that explains the adjustments. I haven’t gotten one yet.

        I’m also uncertain about whether the alignment of the GISS dataset with other datasets means there’s nothing to worry about, or whether they are all corrupted. That may sound paranoid, but keep in mind that the AGW activists have corrupted and destroyed original data, tried to rig the peer review process, filed lawsuits against their critics, and generally given me reasons to be paranoid.

        1. Whatever the explanation for the adjustments, they still didn’t create the warming trend.

          1. If that warming trend is a mere molehill, who cares?

  12. This is odd:

    These shifts are adjusted via an algorithm using data from nearby stations. What Homewood found is that a lot of the past data have been modified in a mostly cooling direction.

    I thought he found that the data from damn near every station had been adjusted to show a warming trend. Now, if the shifts really were to “normalize” data by getting rid of outliers via comparison to nearby stations, how is it that every station was adjusted?

    The explanation would make sense if only a handful of isolated stations were adjusted. But that’s not what happened, according to Homewood. The only explanation that would make sense is one that was founded on a systematic problem with older data being too warm. Is anyone claiming that? If so, what’s their argument?

    And, again, if you are correcting for urban heat islands, its the newer data (following the growth of urban heat islands) that should be adjusted down, not the older data.

    1. RCD: Recall that the algorithm “corrects” abrupt temperature shifts. In this case, the “warming” in the raw data might be being treated as an artifact of urban heat islands or some such which would cause the algorithm to lower the temperatures.

      1. What basis is there to assume that is always the case? Maybe some times they moved the station away from an urban heat island producing an abrupt shit downward in temperatures. Yes, that would necessitate adjusting the former temps from that station downward. What if however, it went the other way and a station that was in the country was now in the city because the city grew out around it? That would mean adjusting the later readings down but leaving the former ones alone. So again, how is it that all of the temps from a given area and time were adjusted upwards? Some of them should have stayed the same.

        Moreover, how could you ever construct an algorithm that would accurately reflect that? If and how much the temperature measurement changed would be entirely dependent on the circumstances of that station. I don’t see how you could do this without examining the conditions every year at every station.

        Moreover, the changes would vary. Maybe some stations moved from parking lots to the middle of the dessert while others moved from more benign heat islands. Yet somehow the adjustments remained so consistent.

        I am not buying it Ron.

        1. This, exactly.

          The substitution of arbitrarily manipulated values for actual collected data is the scientific equivalent of a rootkit. Nothing you see after that point can be trusted.

          1. BC & J: And yet all of the datasets parallel one another within a fairly constrained band of temperatures even though the satellite measurements are entirely independent of the instrumental measurements. Is this just coincidence?

            1. Only if you assume the satellite data is gospel. Maybe the satellites are not that accurate at measuring surface temperature. Indeed, many climate sciences believe this and claim the surface data is the more reliable set.

              Moreover, Ron, see Tarran’s quote below about the station in Australia. There is no indication at all that these stations actually changed to justify applying the algorithm. We know for a fact at least one didn’t.

              Lastly, most of these measurements are pre-1979. So you can’t say they match the satellite data, since none exists.

              1. Again, use the raw data and give the error bars. Problem solved.

            2. Are the different datasets actually different measurement stations? Or are they simply ‘different’ ways of adjusting/consolidating temperatures from the same set of measurement stations?

              Because if the latter (and I’ll bet it is the latter), then it is quite easy to see how a politicized academic discipline imposes a way of thinking on everyone so that everyone actually confirms everyone else.

              IOW – this could well be a Potemkin science lab. ‘Looks like’ an attempt to replicate results independently but in fact is nothing of the sort

        2. Yet another terrible thing about the politicization of climate science. What should really be done to establish a bench mark data set is start a new data set with consistent and pre-determined rules on how and when things can be adjusted to account for changes. It woudl take some time, but then we could carry on with some real data, figure out how accurate the satellites are and develop some proper science. The historical data will still be worth studying, but can never be as reliable.

      2. Recall that the algorithm “corrects” abrupt temperature shifts.

        OK, that would explain why every station was adjusted: they all had abrupt temperature shifts. Fair enough.

        Then why are all the adjustments in the same direction? “Abrupt” temperature shifts were always to show temps higher than they “actually” were in the past? To a point that the raw data consistently shows a slight cooling trend, but the adjusted data consistently shows a warming trend?

        I’m going to need to know what systematic flaw led to such a consistent adjustment across all the stations.

        Perhaps the most innocuous explanation is that the algorithm is fatally flawed because its too self-referential and creates a feedback loop that moves everything in one direction. Occam’s razor would seem to support that explanation over the assumptions you would have to make that would support the results of the algorithm, it seems to me.

        1. And if this algorithm is fatally flawed, what other ones are as well? And given that fact, how can any of the temperature measurements they give be trusted? If you can’t trust their temperature measurements, there is no way to even begin to evaluate the models much less validate them.

          This is much worse than the model failure because it calls into question their ability to reliably evaluate a model in the first place.

          1. it calls into question their ability to reliably evaluate a model in the first place.

            The model produces the results that the theory predicts. When observations fail to conform to the predictions, then there is something wrong with the observations. Duh. Because the theory is correct, regardless of whether or not the climate actually does what it is supposed to do. Duh.

            1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

              The problem is that when their predictions failed to come true they never admitted they lacked understanding of the system and needed to go back to the drawing board to figure out if they were just outright wrong or missed things, but doubled down on the stupid and resorted to name calling and excuse making. That’s not how science works.

        2. I’m going to need to know what systematic flaw led to such a consistent adjustment across all the stations.

          In the US, at least, there are well-documented systemic flaws with raw data that necessitate a warming adjustment: the changing of Weather Bureau standards to MMTS sensors and morning observations (from CRS sensors and evening observations).

  13. No doubt the researchers who fear the consequences of man-made warming are greatly edified when their adjustments produce the temperature trend that they expect.

    What are there researchers who fear the “consequences” of man-made global warming doing research into global warming in the first place? It is like having the siblings of the murdered individual sitting in the jury box.

    The difference between the high and the low trends in the datasets since 1979 is 0.03 C? per decade. Summed over the past 35 years, temperatures have increased by at most 0.56 C? and at least by 0.455 C?, that is to say, a difference of about one-tenth of a degree Celsius.

    The problem here, as you said, is that the models expected an increase of at least 1?C by 2015, yet here we are and there hasn’t been an increase greater than 0.5?C (the average). That’s a BIG failure.

    1. The problem here, as you said, is that the models expected an increase of at least 1?C by 2015, yet here we are and there hasn’t been an increase greater than 0.5?C (the average). That’s a BIG failure.

      In science, when the observations don’t match the hypothesis, then it is time to revisit the hypothesis.

      In climate “science,” when the observations don’t match the hypothesis, then there is something wrong with the observations.

      Because…. consensus!

    2. And that’s what Ron identifies as the big scandal. Which I think is right. The models are clearly missing something important.

  14. To the skeptics: Climategate was a manufactured controversy. Everything being talked about here is a fake controversy. Adjusting raw data is a necessary part of the science. How would any of you like it if every sentence of every email you wrote–and even every word chosen to describe the routine aspects of your work (e.g., “adjustment”)–could potentially end up plastered all over the Drudge Report in a malicious effort to discredit you and your entire profession? These researchers are doing the most important work on earth and they have been constantly victimized by bullshit peddlers with blogs and a very well-funded propaganda effort. Scientists know what they’re doing. Transparency is all well and good but not every idiot with a keyboard gets to have an opinion worth paying attention to, even if he has a job at the Telegraph.

    1. These researchers are doing the most important work on earth…

      Ha ha ha ha ha hah haa haa haa haaa
      Sucker
      Sucker!
      Oh, sucker

        1. That’s what we’ve been telling you for ages. [citation needed] in other words.

          1. For some mysterious reason the (complete) vindication of the participants in the Climategate affair didn’t make it to Drudge, but you’re free to look it up on Wikipedia. There are rebuttals of the Booker/Homewood nonsense out there, a Google search away, that are perhaps a bit less obscuring than Ron’s. One thing we’ve got to figure out is why climate change skeptics’ Google machines seem to be universally broken.

              1. Gotta get that Google thing fixed man.

            1. Shorter Tony: I read it on the internet so it must be true.

        2. You see Tony, in the world of real science, when observations fail to conform to predictions, then the predictions are wrong and the theory needs to be reconsidered.

          Climate “science” works under the presumption that the theory is correct, so when the models fail, the observations must be wrong.

          That’s why climate “science” is not science. It assumes that it is correct, and the “research” is simply an attempt to fit the data to the theory. Real science fits the theory to the data.

          1. So should we only take biologists seriously who are skeptical of evolution? The only thing gone wrong here is your refusal to accept what the data say in this field. Nobody woke up one day with a clever scheme to invent a field of science to prove the conclusion that the planet is warming due to human activity. Such warming was discovered and has been measured for decades. You just refuse to learn anything about it because you prefer fitting in with the dumbest participants in the American political conversation than actually knowing things.

            1. I understand that the predictions are consistently wrong, and have been for decades. It takes faith to believe in something like that. Faith, as in religion.

              1. You understand wrong and should make an attempt to correct yourself.

                  1. I see you have no intention of heeding Ron’s advice to be skeptical of bullshit you would prefer to believe.

                    It’s much simpler to be informed than deliberately misinformed, one would think, considering the availability of information these days. But with the good information comes the bad, and for some unknown reason you prefer the bad, every single fucking time.

                    1. You know what’s not so simple, Tony? Thinking critically. It’s really easy to just accept what authority tells you without actually thinking it through. Well I’ve thought it through, and concluded that the authorities on the matter are full of shit. I don’t see it as a grand conspiracy as you allege. I think they really do believe their bullshit. But believing it doesn’t make it true.

                    2. Then I pity you the time you’ve wasted. You’ve thought it through? You’ve been a climate researcher and have uncovered facts that go against what all the other experts are saying?

                      Or have you just read some bullshit on rightwing blogs that was plausible enough for you to be convinced? You didn’t come to any conclusions about this on your own; you are not equipped to be an expert on this subject. So you are the one blindly relying on authorities–authorities on bullshit peddling.

                    3. You didn’t come to any conclusions about this on your own; you are not equipped to be an expert on this subject.

                      You don’t have to be an expert on something to recognize bullshit when you see it. Yes, I came to these conclusion all by myself over the last twenty years as I saw prediction after prediction fail, while the “scientists” scramble to find explanations that still support their now obviously flawed premise. You see, that’s called thinking critically. You should try it sometime.

                    4. What predictions failed, and where did you go to discover this fact?

                    5. What predictions failed, and where did you go to discover this fact?

                      I’ve been reading about impending catastrophes caused by global warming since I started reading newspapers and generally being informed. They haven’t happened. I didn’t go anywhere to discover that. You see, I have this ability that you lack: I can think.

                    6. All of them. Polar amplification, tropospheric hot spot, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, no more snow, all the glaciers will melt by 2035, the models have diverged from the data (even Trenberth said that if the models diverge for about 15 years then the models are wrong), the hockey stick was shown to be BS, etc.

                    7. Or have you just read some bullshit on rightwing blogs that was plausible enough for you to be convinced? You didn’t come to any conclusions about this on your own; you are not equipped to be an expert on this subject. So you are the one blindly relying on authorities–authorities on bullshit peddling.

                      Change rightwing to leftwing and everything you’ve said there could just as easily apply to yourself, Tony.

                    8. Why do you bother arguing with Tony? It’s obvious he is incapable of rational thought.

              2. You hit it on the head sarcasmic: this movement is a cult and they could give a shit about science, because it is about faith. Watermelon cultists.

                1. Watermelon cultists.

                  Green on the outside, red on the inside. Yep.

            2. In 1850, biologists should have been skeptical of evolution. That is about where climate science is now in terms of maturity as a field of science. That’s what drives mu nuts here. Our understanding of the climate is clearly lacking quite a bit. It is arrogance to pretend that anything it predicts is anything close to certain.

              I’m reasonably well convinced that humans are having some influence on the climate. I don’t think anyone has any idea what the long term outcome will be. And I think that the politicization on both sides is doing terrible harm to what is an interesting and important subject.

              1. Well put, Zeb.

        3. To expand upon this, Tony of the little memory and smaller brain, consider that back before global warming took hold, the consensus was that the Earth was headed for a mini ice age, global cooling. Would you have supported stifling the then-dissenting views showing warming?

          Or if you had been around in the early 1900s, would you have supported stifling the radical new views of relativity and quantum mechanics to preserve the simple beauty of the existing paradigm?

          Science and indeed all society progresses when a dissenting minority upsets the status quo. Stifling dissenters is what majorities do and is why majority rule is better described as dictatorship of the majority.

          When the global warming scientists cook the data, then conveniently lose the raw data; when they have to resort to changing the rules to reject dissenting papers; when they have to secretly sabotage meeting participants entirely based on their dissenting views; then those status quo adherents have lost all right to claim scientific credibility.

          1. the consensus was that the Earth was headed for a mini ice age, global cooling.

            No it wasn’t. Now, are you going to apologize for perpetuating a lie? No, you’re going to continue believing it, perhaps sprinkling a few insults against my intelligence along the way? Oh, okay.

            Science and indeed all society progresses when a dissenting minority upsets the status quo.

            You’re implying that everything believed by a majority of scientists is, by that very fact, wrong. You’re either saying nothing at all about this subject, or something very very stupid.

            When the global warming scientists cook the data, then conveniently lose the raw data; when they have to resort to changing the rules to reject dissenting papers; when they have to secretly sabotage meeting participants entirely based on their dissenting views; then those status quo adherents have lost all right to claim scientific credibility.

            Apparently you don’t have any concern about the constant assault of lies and political attacks these researchers have to deal with; you’re content to join the torch-wielders.

            1. Science and indeed all society progresses when a dissenting minority upsets the status quo.

              You’re implying that everything believed by a majority of scientists is, by that very fact, wrong. You’re either saying nothing at all about this subject, or something very very stupid.

              No, he would be saying that everything believed by a majority of scientists is wrong if he said something like:
              “Every dissenting majority upsets the status quo and creates a new consensus”

              Or something, and he didn’t say that.

              Rather, he said that the status quo changes and improves based on dissenting minorities. For example, Einstein and relativity. Or really, any individual scientist or group of scientists that discovers something new, and shows it.

              Now, go back to your smug insults against libertarians, you great logician, you.

              1. Which is to say, nothing relevant to the discussion. So sometimes our understanding of the universe changes when an individual or small group discovers something. Nobody has discovered that the greenhouse effect isn’t real. When they do, I’ll come back here and tell Scarecrow what a good psychic he was. It is not rational to dismiss the status quo because it is the status quo. For the general public, the consensus in science is their best bet, and going against it almost certainly foolhardy. We’re not talking exotic physics here. There are few things more insulting to science than weaponizing trite scientific truisms against it.

                1. That’s fine. All I’m saying is, if you focus on your primary point, instead of going off on tangents trying to explain how everyone is “Wrong!”, then you’ll make fewer mistakes, and probably say a lot less, too.

                  Win-win for everyone.

                2. What mechanism does the so-called Green House effect work on a planetary scale? Is it the same as an actual green house.

            2. What Brian said about dissenting minorities.

              Your reading comprehension is just as good concerning that RealClearScience link. It says there were 44 papers predicting warming and 7 predicting cooling. That may not be consensus for cooling, but it’s not consensus for warming either, and I doubt a single such paper would make it to any mainstream journal today. Hell, they are still bragging about models which can’t even predict the past or present.

              Which you conveniently don’t mention.

              1. So has our understanding been completely static since the 1970s? Or has science worked the way it does: with increasing precision? What does it even matter what a couple papers said decades ago? The science is ongoing… You’re trying to say that because sometimes people are wrong, they’re wrong now, and you have no justification for this claim.

                1. Increasing precision? You seriously ask that? ALL climate models have been showing increasing divergence from reality. You feed them the initial conditions from 20 years ago, they all predict rising temperatures ever since, when reality shows … flat line.

                  And you claim to be able to think and to read. You need better bullshit.

                2. The science is ongoing… You’re trying to say that because sometimes people are wrong, they’re wrong now, and you have no justification for this claim.

                  No, he’s trying to say that because sometimes people are wrong, that they might be wrong now. Not quite the same thing.

            3. Substitute “warming” for “cooling” in the article and read it again.

        4. Or to put it yet another way, there’s that old saying about lawyers: pound the facts if they are on your side, pound the law if it’s on your side, and pound the table otherwise.

          It never says to repeat rejected claims over and over again. You always move to new claims or find new facts toback up the old claims.

          What the climategate warmists have been pounding is models which don’t match reality and haven’t done so for 18 years, and before that, predicted cooling instead of warming. It’s as if those lawyers were pounding Argentinian robbery law in an Estonian court for a speeding ticket in Japan.

          1. Why do you go to such apparently great effort to understand the details of the bullshit lies but not the actual reality? It’s baffling.

            1. You mean the reality of flat temperatures for 18 years as compared to the models of increasing temperatures, models which can’t even predict history correctly?

              1. Exactly, that’s the bullshit I’m talking about. You know false things and refuse to learn true things. Why? Why go through life this way?

                1. OK. What accurate predictions have the models made? Fine tuning the models to match past data doesn’t count.

                  1. Link. Good thing my Google still works or you guys would be shit out of luck.

                    1. Hindcasting =/= forecasting dipshit. Stop pretending that you understand science Toney. You don’t.

                    2. Didn’t I say that? You can fine tune models to match data sets. Everyone knows that. It doesn’t mean that they will make accurate predictions of the future.

                      I’m not asking the models to produce a weather forecast. Obviously they are not intended to do that. But I think that the decade scale warming trends would be something they should predict if they are any good.

    2. Every word you post is correct. It’s when they are read as sentences that they turn into total bullshit.

    3. The difference being if you discredit every farmer or banker tomorrow you create a catastrophe. If you dispose of every climate scientist tomorrow, we get a new generation of them the next day. Well before any impending catastrophe that we may or may not create.

      Moreover, the new generation of them doesn’t know much of anything better than their predecessors did. They aren’t imparted with some divine knowledge, they are guessing. And whether we’re talking nutrition, climate, weather, aether, GUT, cold fusion, or nuclear power, they make *plenty* of wrong guesses.

      1. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

        1. Regardless of whether I agree with the science or not “How would you like it?” is not a valid question or relevant argument to any/all critics. Especially, when it comes to publicly funded science.

          If scientists were somehow magically less fallible than any other profession, there might be justification for your assertions of ‘most important work on earth’. As it stands, they produce fewer goods, services, and resources than most any other profession, consume as much if not more, and are considerably more naive in their speciality.

          Ascribing them as doing the most important work on earth requires no lesser a leap of faith than asserting that they do God’s work;

          To the skeptics: How would you like it if fundamentalists were subject to constant scrutiny about any and all proclamations of doom they may make? They are doing the most important work on earth and they’ve been repeatedly victimized by bullshit-peddlers with blogs and well-funded propaganda efforts. Transparency is good and all but not every unwashed heathen with a keyboard gets to have an opinion.

    4. Tony, you’re so predictable.

      And watching you regurgitate this stuff is like watching a chicken play the piano.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5_EwkDMAe4

      Do you understand that using the environmentalist movement as a cover for your progressive economic policy goals genuinely hurts the environmentalist movement?

      Do you care if you hurt the environmentalist movement? If achieving your progressive economic policy goals required you to completely undermine and destroy the environmentalist movement, would you care?

    5. “Climategate was a manufactured controversy.”

      Uh-huh. No agenda there! Yepper. Let’s go with that.

    6. Yes, adjusting raw data is part of science. However, in real science, you disclose the raw data and the basis for your adjustments so that other scientists can review your work and see if there are errors, problems in your reasoning, etc. You don’t just present the adjusted data as if it’s gospel truth.

      1. And erase all the original data so no one can go back and check it…

      2. I’m not aware that anyone is hiding any data. See, here’s the point I was making: the guy who manufactured this controversy out of thin air actually called it the greatest scandal in the history of science. But it’s not even a little scandal. Yet instead of ignoring that guy (he doesn’t believe in evolution either), we debate about the scandal he invented.

        1. That was a major part of ClimateGate. They were publishing their adjusted data, and not releasing the raw data or the basis for their adjustments. In fact, they deleted the raw data.

            1. Darn that way back machine:
              http://web.archive.org/web/200…..ilability/

              1. I’m an idiot so maybe you can explain where the scandal is.

                1. The One of many scandals is that the East Anglia fold lost the original raw data, which means they have nothing anymore. Their publications and anything they produce is worth nothing. You cannot back-extrapolate that raw data.

                  1. It si worse than that Cytotoxic. They didn’t lose the raw data. They didn’t have a hard drive crash or a building fire that destroyed their records. They intentionally destroyed those records. And then stonewalled when asked for them and when forced to finally admitted they had been destroyed because “they needed the memory space”.

                    I will never understand why Bailey continues to give these people the benefit of the doubt. They destroyed those records because if they hadn’t, someone would have been able to check their work and reveal what frauds they are.

                    1. ^This^

                      The choice is between incompetent or underhanded and RB magically arrives at unquestionably credible.

                    2. JESUS. Really? Are you sure? Straight incompetence would be bad enough but having managed a much smaller database myself, I could see how it might happen. Database management sucks. YOU DON’T NEED MEMORY SPACE AS MUCH AS YOUR ORIGINAL RAW DATA YOU MOTHERFUCKING DUMB (*&((*#Q$ *RAGES INCOHERENTLY*

                    3. Yes really.

                      We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

                      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot……-data.html

    7. Scientists know what they’re doing.

      What do you mean the priest’s words don’t actually transform wine into blood? Priests know what they’re doing. Ecumenicism is all well and good but not every idiot with a printing press gets to have an opinion worth paying attention to, even if he has attended some fancy university.

    8. Most scientists are not okay with massaging data. Neither are the reviewers from most journals. The raw data and associated uncertainties with each data point (in the form of error bars) are expected. Then feel free to correct (explaining your methodology and reasoning in detail) to your heart’s content. This is how science is actually done. Especially given the ability to submit supplementary information of unlimited length, there is no excuse not to include this.

      1. Most scientists are not okay with massaging data. Neither are the reviewers from most journals. The raw data and associated uncertainties with each data point (in the form of error bars) are expected. Then feel free to correct (explaining your methodology and reasoning in detail) to your heart’s content. This is how science is actually done.

        Horse. Shit.

        Absolute garbage just shy of random word strings gets published and remains unretracted in top flight journals in more mature fields regularly. Acting like there is some sort of policy of full disclosure and honesty in place that is anything more than a wink and a nudge between researchers and reviewers is a joke.

        I say this as someone who has contacted authors for their data and/or methods and been handed rolling datasets and protocols generated by people who aren’t listed as authors or otherwise noted. And that’s the high-road stuff, I won’t even get in to the “We collected three samples, is there any way to show that one is an outlier?”-type absolute B.S. that occurs on a daily basis.

        1. Hmm…I guess our experiences in the academic publishing world has been entirely opposite then. I say this as someone who has had submissions rejected purely on the most minor of concerns and no real technical merit. My experience has generally been that reviewers are extremely concerned about these sorts of issues. This is across a number of publications. Maybe it’s the difference in fields?

          1. And this has been the case even when submitting to journals that I don’t necessarily consider top flight. For instance, Journal of Applied Physics with its impact factor of ~2. In my experience, it’s been an entirely different level of scrutiny when submitting to something like a Nature subject journal. I don’t know. Maybe I’ve just had crappy luck on reviewers. Maybe it’s that I’m generally only submitting in a field that cares a lot about quantitation. Who knows?

            1. Maybe it’s the difference in fields?

              This and…

              In my experience, it’s been an entirely different level of scrutiny when submitting to something like a Nature subject journal.

              This.

              I assume you’ve seen stuff like mathgen and the work of Kimo Errikson? Not enough to make it seem like it’s all bunk, but certainly enough to wear on the honest mind.

              1. And it seems like this meme pops up every decade or so, and I’ve contributed my fair share of novelty.

  15. Ron, thank you for this. I have been one of your harshest critics in the past (when I was still drinking deep of the Koolaid), but am convinced that you are trying to find the best path through this.

  16. One aspect which I have seen little reporting on is how simplified the models are. I am no scientist and don’t know the details of any. But I do have a subscription to Nature, and have seen several reports which flat astounded me (no citations available, and my memory may have simplified some details).

    1. One new model bragged that it was better than previous models primarily because it predicted even greater *historical* divergence from reality than existing models; whereas other model predictions were 2C higher than reality *at that moment*, this new model predicted 4C higher than reality.

    2. One model claimed to be improved because it took into account cloud cover. The clear implication was that no previous models did.

    3. Ditto for taking into consideration atmospheri water vapor.

    Obviously I didn’t know and don’t remember the precise details of the latter two. It may be that the new models had explicit calculations and measurements for cloud cover and water vapor, whereas previous models folded that data into other calculations and measurements.

    Nevertheless, the impression built up that climate models were pretty shaky to start with and hadn’t improved very much. My memory says all three of these were in the last 5 years.

  17. Just to keep up with those who adjust their datasets and the subsequent analysis, here is one more:

    We have been working hard on producing our new Version 6 dataset, revamping virtually all of the processing steps, and it has taken much longer than expected. We have learned a lot over the years…
    In just the last month, we have had what amounts to a paradigm shift on how to analyze the data. We are very hopeful that the resulting dataset will be demonstrably better than our current version. Only time will tell.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/20…..re-trends/

  18. The real scandal is “stupid”.

  19. It is almost getting amusing to listen to Ron lecture skeptics about confirmation bias. The people who support this theory, the smart ones and not the political opportunist retards like Jackland ace and Tony, admit there is no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and that CO2 is not the most potent or common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. You can’t deduce the earth’s temperature from the its CO2 concentration at a given time.

    The entire field consists of a quest to find and explain the various mechanisms by which CO2 warms the atmosphere such that it does so in a way that isn’t directly correlated to temperature and even though it is not the most potent or most common greenhouse gas. That is a text book example of confirmation bias. No one ever is allowed to question the premise. The entire point is to find the data and mechanism to explain that premise. And Ron lectures those of use who are skeptical on the dangers of confirmation bias.

    1. There’s a lot of good writing in there. Thank you.

      1. Thank you. Preview can be your friend.

    2. No one ever is allowed to question the premise. The entire point is to find the data and mechanism to explain that premise.

      Yep. Science starts with a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, then comes up with a conclusion. Based upon that conclusion the hypothesis is accepted, adjusted, or rejected. Climate “science” skips that last part and simply clings to the theory as if it is gospel. Well, being that climatology is a religion, the theory really is gospel. Literally.

    3. The entire field consists of a quest to find and explain the various mechanisms by which CO2 warms the atmosphere such that it does so in a way that isn’t directly correlated to temperature and even though it is not the most potent or most common greenhouse gas. That is a text book example of confirmation bias. No one ever is allowed to question the premise. The entire point is to find the data and mechanism to explain that premise. And Ron lectures those of use who are skeptical on the dangers of confirmation bias.

      ^^^^^^ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      And, every time one mechanism gets falsified, up comes another one!

      It’s a shame, because the Earth’s climate systems have a huge impact on the prosperity of our civilization, and the questions related to how they behaves and how human activity affects them is vital. It would be a terrible shame if human activity created the same sort of disaster putting latrines upstream of wells did in creating cholera epidemics.

      Those possessing a religious desire to flag CO2 as pollutant have in their zeal to give their superstitions the imprimatur of scientific validity have done an excellent job of corrupting most scientific institutions in the same way the followers of Lysenko corrupted the Russian scientific establishment after the revolution.

      As a result the scientific process is being applied in a very constrained, furtive way to the climate systems, and knowledge is advancing slower than it would otherwise.

      1. Flagging CO2 as a polutant is a must if you want to blame man so you can justify the collectivist final solutions to deal with that (meaning man).

      1. Tony your link just admits what I am saying. It doesn’t correlate. Sorry, but linking to examples of the quest to explain the lack of correlation doesn’t disprove my point. Everything in that link is based on the assumption that CO2 must cause warming and is nothing but people trying to find a mechanism for how that happens.

        I know you are not big on thinking and have difficulty understanding the meaning of words. So it is unsurprising you can’t grasp a concept like confirmation bias. Let me give you some help, you just linked to an example of it.

        1. So the claim you have a problem with is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I’m not sure I follow. Was somebody saying there was a 1:1 relationship between CO2 concentration and surface temperature?

          1. No. But people are saying that there is a positive feedback system where a slight warming by CO2 would trigger increased water vapor and methane concentrations in the atmosphere resulting in ever higher temperatures.

            That’t the falsified theory that your religion desperately is trying to promote as being correct.

            1. Citation needed for this desperation.

              1. Citation needed for this desperation.

                Of course! Here you go.

            2. Yeah, the feedback loop is obvious bullshit. If such a loop exists, and once there there is no return, why didn’t the planet turn into an inhabitable sauna in the past? How did it ever recover? Yeah, that feedback loop doesn’t pass the laugh test.

              1. You look ridiculous, picking apart aspects of this topic, completely unjustified in your confidence that you know so much better than the actual researchers. I don’t get this level of arrogance. I mean, I’m pretty arrogant, but Jesus fuck.

                1. It’s called skepticism, not arrogance. Skepticism is the cornerstone of science. Unless we’re talking about climate “science.” Then skepticism is heresy. Which shows that climate “science” isn’t science. It’s a religion.

                  1. So try being skeptical of stale global warming denier horseshit.

                    1. You’ve got it backwards, Tony. The burden of proof is on the people who are claiming that the world is about to end, not on those who are critical of them.

                    2. Toney: “wah stop tearing apart my stupid arguments! Wah!”

                    3. You employ logic like an armless person employs a bow and arrow.

                      Nobody is claiming the world is about to end. Since you can’t even get this right, let me repeat: be at least as skeptical of the bullshit denier stuff as you are of the actual science. Doesn’t that seem reasonable? The deniers don’t win by default. The burden is actually on them, as they’re making a positive and extraordinary claim, that the science is completely wrong for some reason.

                    4. “The burden of proof is on them”

                      Dipshit TOney doesn’t know what a ‘null hypothesis’ is or how burden of proof works. He looks even stupider in light of the fact that the data is lining up with the positions espoused by people like me ie human CO2 is driving some or all of the warming and there is no case for preventative action or any case for catastrophic warming.

                    5. You employ logic like an armless person employs a bow and arrow.

                      Relevant!

                    6. The burden is actually on them

                      No, Tony. It’s not. That’s not how burden of proof works.

                      “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
                      -Albert Einstein

                      I bet you have no idea what that means.

                    7. Nope not a clue.

            3. This so-called desperation is the only mechanism by which CO2 can warm the atmosphere substantially. Doubling sensitivity, positive feedback with H2O is the only way its gonna work.

              This is a gigantic indicator that Tony doesn’t what in the fuck he is talking about. tarran states the central premise to all the CAGW freaks theories and Tony sez its wrong. That is fucking rich.

          2. No one is saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Those who think critically about the matter question how significant the effect of CO2 is on the climate, and ask what else affects it. Additionally, people who think critically ask if more CO2 and higher temperatures might actually be a good thing. You know, more food for the plants we and our livestock eat. That and the fact that warmer periods in the past were referred to as “climate optimums” as in the optimum climate.

            That’s what critical thinkers do. You should try it sometime.

            1. So you’re a real critical thinker while the world’s scientists are all morons. I wonder if there is an alternative to this that might be a bit more realistic and explain how you came to this conclusion. What could it be…

              1. They’re not morons. They’re believers. They truly believe, and will do anything to confirm their beliefs. That’s what people of faith do…

                  1. What do I need a citation for? I didn’t learn this from someone else. Unlike you, I can draw my own conclusions after observing and thinking. I’ve watched prediction after prediction fail over the last twenty years, while these people scramble to justify their theory rather than do actual science and reconsider their premise. They truly believe, and no amount of failed predictions will sway them. Like Crichton said, they’re like some guy on the street corner predicting the end of the world who is not swayed when the world fails to end. He just changes the date. I don’t need a citation for that. It’s obvious to anyone who can think critically about the matter and isn’t under the sway of some belief system that refuses to consider that the premise may be faulty.

                    1. What predictions have failed? I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to be specific and provide a credible source, as you’re asserting that an entire field of science is incapable of doing science or has been corrupted somehow, an alarming and expansive claim.

                      Of course, even if there were lots of wrong predictions, that doesn’t mean current science is necessarily wrong. Is this sort of like your attitude on gay marriage? You don’t like the way some of the participants in the conversation looked at you, so you’re going to adopt the wrong position out of spite?

                    2. I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to be specific and provide a credible source

                      Ah yes. Appeal to Authority.

                      Of course, even if there were lots of wrong predictions, that doesn’t mean current science is necessarily wrong.

                      Once again you show how little you know about science.

                    3. Ah yes. Appeal to Authority.

                      Hahahahahahahahaah. Hahahahaha. Sorry. You are such a fucking idiot.

                      Asking for evidence is an appeal to authority fallacy. Jesus Christ, and you’re sitting here trying to tell me you’re smarter than all the scientists in the world? You’re too ridiculous to be believed.

                    4. Jesus Christ, and you’re sitting here trying to tell me you’re smarter than all the scientists in the world?

                      Um, no. As I said in a different post, really smart people can believe some really stupid shit. It’s called faith. That’s why AGW resembles a doomsday cult more than science.

                    5. But you still think that evidence is never to be trusted because it counts as an authority?

                    6. But you still think that evidence is never to be trusted because it counts as an authority?

                      If by “evidence” you mean “data that has been massaged to fit the narrative put forth by the authorities on the matter,” then no. I don’t trust it.

                    7. Of course, even if there were lots of wrong predictions, that doesn’t mean current science is necessarily wrong.

                      They got the narrative right, they just got the facts wrong.

          3. Tony,

            The question is does CO2 warm the atmosphere in a significant way even though it isn’t the most potent or common greenhouse gas and there is no direct correlation between CO2 and temperature.

            Your link is just a list of constructed mechanisms to explain how that is. But nothing in it proves that it is that way. It just assumes CO2 must have an effect on temperature greater than its concentration or potency would indicate. Every time the theory falls, the solution is to look for some as yet unknown mechanism rather than giving up on the idea that increased CO2 concentrations result in significant warming.

            1. I suggest you click over to the “Intermediate” tab. Nothing has failed, and that CO2 causes warming has been established experimentally and by basic physics theory for a long time. Temperature varies on shorter timescales, but if you look at the graphs you’ll notice a pretty clear relationship between increases in CO2 and increases in temperature over the long-term.

              When you refer to more potent greenhouse gases, presumably you’re talking about water vapor? It is more dominant, but it also intensifies the warming caused by CO2, so whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re not doing it.

              1. Yes Tony it has. It has always failed. If it hadn’t, they would be able to predict temperatures in the future based on a given set of conditions and they can’t. Indeed, if the theory were confirmed the whole field would essentially stop operating. It continues because the models don’t predict anything. So they are in a constant quest to find new mechanism to explain why the theory doesn’t match up to observation. The question is forever “what mechanism related to CO2 is causing us not to predict this” never “maybe something else is happening here instead of CO2”.

                That is textbook confirmation bias. Indeed, anyone who questions the assumption and proposes an alternative theory to explain climate changes, like the sun, is immediately dismissed from the field as a hieratic.

                There is really no clearer way to explain it to you. You will just never listen because this confirms so many of your own cherished beliefs and superstitions.

                1. The models are fine and have made pretty good predictions so far, and make future projections. I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Could you link me somewhere?

                  Are you proposing a natural alternative to explain the observed warming? Or are you saying that burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests doesn’t put CO2 into the atmosphere? Or what?

                  One thing you’re clearly saying is that you think you’ve figured out something that the world’s scientific community hasn’t. That’s a pretty ballsy claim, one made a lot around here. This must be the smartest collection of blog commenters in the world.

                  1. The models are fine and have made pretty good predictions so far, and make future projections. I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Could you link me somewhere?

                    No Tony they haven’t. Even the UN admits there has been a pause in warming and no one knows why. And no one has yet been able to accurately predict and explain past temperatures.

                    Again you tell yourself lies because you want to believe it is true.

                    1. Not the goddamn pause again. Again, please link me or stop making claims.

                    2. Yes Tony there is. Even the warmists admit it.

                      IPCC computer models dating from 1990 through the present have consistently predicted at least 2.4 degrees of global warming per century. Such warming would require at least 0.24 degrees Celsius per decade, for which we should see at least 0.80 degrees Celsius warming since 1979. However, real-world warming since 1979 is occurring at less than half that pace. And there has been absolutely no real-world warming during the past 17 years.

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja…..rspective/

                      Outright lying about objective facts doesn’t help you tony. Try spinning those facts in mendacious ways instead of just crudely lying about them.

                  2. The models are fine and have made pretty good predictions so far

                    No, Tony, they haven’t. They’ve been making predictions for over twenty years now, and they’ve all been wrong. Every year you read about impending catastrophes that never materialize. It’s a doomsday cult. People enter the field because they’re believers and want to do something. So yeah, of course the community of climate scientists agree. It’s a self-selected group of believers. That should be pretty fucking obvious to anyone.

                    1. So you’re under the impression that scientists have been claiming the apocalypse is nigh, and since the apocalypse hasn’t happened, an entire field of research is full of PhDs who are dumber than you. Gosh, what happens if you may be exaggerating the claim a bit? That the experts have actually said the effects will be varied and happening over the long-term, and have always been saying that. I don’t suppose you’d finally admit, in such a scenario, that maybe you’re the idiot and not the global scientific community?

                    2. an entire field of research is full of PhDs who are dumber than you.

                      I’ve said it before that smarts has nothing to do with it. Really smart people can believe some really stupid shit. That’s what faith is all about.

                      AGW is based on faith, not science.

                  3. Here you go Tony:
                    Two Minutes to Midnight

                    The following graph compares models to observations over the period 1979-2013, long enough to place the 1998 El Nino in the middle, but excluding the earlier hiatus of the 1950s and 1960s. 1979 is also when the satellite record commences. The figure is a standard box-and-whiskers diagram of a type routinely used in statistics (rather than some ad hoc method). I’ve shown models with multiple runs as separate boxes and grouped models with singleton runs together. On the right in orange, I’ve done a separate box-and-whisker plot for all models. …
                    The figure shows that nearly every run of every model ran too hot over the 1979-2013 period, with many models running substantially too hot. The discrepancy can be seen with box-and-whiskers of the ensemble, but it pervades all models.

                    1. New Paper by McKitrick and Vogelsang comparing models and observations in the tropical troposphere

                      Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step-change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. … the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels.

                    2. “Unprecedented” Model Discrepancy

                      Equally noteworthy however ? and of greater interest to CA readers where there has been more focus on model-observation discrepancy ? is that the overheating discrepancy between models and surface temperatures in 2014 was the fourth highest in “recorded” history and that the 5 largest warm discrepancies have occurred in the past 6 years. The cumulative discrepancy between models and observations is far beyond any previous precedent. This is true for both surface and satellite comparisons.

                    3. tarran, he said credible sources! If the source is critical of global warming, then it’s not credible! No go find some credible sources that are critical of global warming! Ha ha! You can’t! Because if they’re critical, then they’re not credible! Heads Tony wins, tails you lose! Ha ha!

                    4. Anyone who views Skeptical Science as an authority on anything has a definition of “credible” that is quite loose.

                      1) They have taken Orwell’s dictum about he who controls the past way too much to heart.

                      2) While they try to give the appearance of being scientific, they really hate to argue in good faith.

                      3) Because they have no clue how the process of doing science works. They keep shitting all over themselves.

                    5. Got anything from an actual scientific source and not a dedicated denier outfit? You don’t see the irony in asserting some kind of conspiracy or systemic bias in climate science while you rely on sources unapologetically dedicated to promoting a particular point of view? Unlike with denier outfits like that, scientists never sat around bored one day and decided to spend their lives working to convince themselves that something untrue is true.

                      I don’t know why I should care what a couple of agenda-driven economists say about climate science. Indeed, it’s rather curious why that site and all the hacky journalism it links to, and “skeptic” literature in general, have an overwhelming aversion to consulting actual scientists.

                    6. Oh and why is the McKitrich modeling more trustworthy than all the other modeling you’re skeptical of?

                    7. Oh and why is the McKitrich modeling more trustworthy than all the other modeling you’re skeptical of?

                      Because it gives more accurate results? You know that the process of science involves throwing out shit that fails tom make predictions that match observations right?

                      Is this like some trick question?

                    8. You know that the process of science involves throwing out shit that fails tom make predictions that match observations right?

                      No, tarran. That part got thrown out in favor of consensus.

                    9. Unlike with denier outfits like that, scientists never sat around bored one day and decided to spend their lives working to convince themselves that something untrue is true.

                      Like I said, AGW is based upon faith. It must be true. Period. Any and all criticism is heresy. Yep. It’s a religion alright.

                    10. Gee I wonder why you’d trust her over all the other climatologists in the world. I suppose you randomly chose her name out of a hat?

                    11. Gee I wonder why you’d trust her over all the other climatologists in the world. I suppose you randomly chose her name out of a hat?

                      The sad thing about Tony is he probably has no idea how telling the above argument is about his inability to comprehend what science is.

                    12. Got anything from an actual scientific source

                      If it is critical then it isn’t scientific, right Tony? That’s just perfect, isn’t it. For a source to be considered to be scientific, then it must say AGW is real. That means you can shoot down anything that is critical, because if it is then it can’t be science. Talk about confirmation bias.

                    13. The very most you can say is that we are both practicing confirmation bias. It’s just that you have a lot less credible information from which to seek confirmation.

                    14. If your definition of “credible” is “believes in global warming,” then by definition none of our information is credible.

                      How convenient for you, Tony.

                    15. Hey Toney, see those graphs at the top? Those demonstrate model failure. Game over.

    4. What you say is true, I think. But I think Ron does a good job reporting on the issue.
      Everyone falls prey to confirmation bias and should be reminded of it.

  20. Google the phrase “gruberization of climate science”

  21. “Let’s forget the longer term global record for now. What do the main temperature datasets say about recent warming”

    “The period after 1979 is relevant…”

    “…in recent decades…”

    It seems Ron is missing the point entirely. The claim is that by artificially reducing temperatures earlier in the 20th century,the overall trend line is made to appear more severe than it otherwise would be and lends itself to a more alarmist conclusion.
    Citing current and recent temperature trends doesn’t address Paul Homewood’s argument in any way, shape or form that I can tell.

    1. No it doesn’t. Ron likes to pretend that the post 79 satellite data means anything. Even the AGW supporters admit that is not true. The warming trend of the past 30 years only means something if it is so significant compared to past warming that it cannot be explained as a natural variation. So what if the world warmed however many degrees since 1979? Ron acts like that is evidence for AGW without any comparison to previous temperature fluctuations. And thinks we are the ones guilty of confirmation bias.

      Unless you want to wait for a few centuries of satellite data, the ability to correctly measure past temperatures is essential to the entire theory.

  22. Well, I waited, as I was told to…. and I get an oddly defensive “this isn’t that bad” defense of the previously discredited and a bit of a tap dance around the result of yet more undisclosed data manipulation. I haz a disappoint.

  23. I am a bit stunned that Ron didn’t seem to discuss the biggest problem with these adjustments: the algorithms for making the adjustments are replacing good data with crappy data.

    Take a case out of Australia

    One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area.

    The guys maintaining the datasets sincerely believe their algorithms are improving the quality of the observations by identifying stations that are producing a systematically offset set of values. Nonetheless, the algorithms are taking very good stations – the rare gems that are known to provide consistent data – and because they are out of step with more questionable stations adjusting them to be more consistent with the bad stations.

    1. Tarran,

      That quote level’s Ron’s entire defense. If this were a football game, Ron would be lying on the field unconscious from your hit and the NFL would be in the process of suspending you.

      Ron’s entire defense consists of the algorithm being a necessary means to account for changes in the conditions around measuring stations. Here you show a station that experienced no change in condition and was adjusted anyway. R

      1. Even Curry’s defense might be breached.

  24. There are only three questions in this entire debate.

    1. Does the data match the prediction?

    The entire premise is that CO2 increases global temperature. If CO2 increased and AGT didn’t…??? You gotta explain the “pause’.

    2. Are increased global temperatures a bad thing or a good thing?

    3. If they are a bad thing (I suspect it isn’t) how do we adapt?

    1. I can honestly say that I’m not concerned.

      1. I am only concerned by the prospect of idiots using this crap as a justification for horrible policies.

        1. Yep. Like turning food into a gasoline additive that ruins engines, banning cheap light bulbs, mandating that vehicles be lighter and less safe so they can conserve gasoline…

      2. I should clafify that I’m not concerned about the actual climate. I am certainly concerned about the politics.

        1. Do the alarmisms cancel each other out?

          1. Do the words “concerned” and ‘alarmisms” mean the same thing to you Tony ?

    2. 1998 was the peak of a very active sunspot cycle, followed by an unusually fast downward curve to the low point of the cycle.

      There has been low sunspot activity not seen since the 1950’s, with some years in the 2010’s having 200 or more spotless days.

  25. It’s amazing how Toney will make post after post of empty re-packaged bullshit only to get hammered with actual data/papers, and come right back. The Retard is strong in this one.

    Bailey’s defense of the adjustments is pretty tepid, and dismissing it is not merited based on what I read. I think a much worse scandal is the jaw-dropping practice of ‘infilling’ that is apparently SOP in climatology. “Oops we forgot to record the data for these areas. We’ll just use other data from different locations or data from another set, like the satellite record, at the same location and just guess the original data set with statistics!” If I had suggested anything like this to my supervisor for my MSc work, he would have laughed and then told me to leave his office. If I had done it and presented the work to ANYONE he would have had me raped to death by the faculty.

    1. Bailey’s defense of the adjustments is pretty tepid, and dismissing it is not merited based on what I read.

      Dismissing Bailey’s defense or the adjustment is not merited?

      I agree with you about the infilling issue. It is just another example of how the entire field has become an exercise in confirmation bias. We lost the data so lets just fill it in with data that assumes our theory is valid.

      1. You’d prefer research be focused on whether long-accepted facts are true rather than uncovering new ones. Perhaps we should teach the controversy in schools.

        The problem with every skeptic here, from the most juvenile to the ones with some links with graphs, is that you’re all dedicated to the conclusion that global warming is a hoax. All you guys do is practice confirmation bias.

        1. You’d prefer research be focused on whether long-accepted facts are true rather than uncovering new ones.

          yes Tony, they need to prove their theory and be open to an alternative until they do so. That is known as avoiding confirmation bias.

          Are you trying to put up posts to prove my point? If so, you are doing a wonderful job of it.

          1. You mean proven to the satisfaction of people, like you, who will never accept that global warming is real (because some talking head told you that was the conservative PC thing to believe). Are you actually interested in the facts, or are you interested in your tribe being seen as correct in the news media?

            1. Yes Tony. Some level beyond people like you, who will believe anything that supports and justified their politics.

              I think beclowned yourself enough on this thread.

            2. When the models can consistently and accurately fit the data, both past and present, and then produce some verifiable and accurate predictions, then I’ll consider reconsidering.

              Even then I do not accept the premise that more CO2 in the atmosphere combined with higher temperatures is bad.

              Maybe more plant food in the air is a good thing. Better crop yields isn’t bad.

              Same with rising temperatures. More arable land and longer growing seasons aren’t bad.

              Past epoc

              1. Past epochs with warmer temperatures were referred to as climate optimums. Why? Because that was considered to be the optimal climate. Suddenly it’s no longer optimal because…?

        2. Yeah.

          It reminds me of when people use meta studies of $0.10 changes in the minimum wage, producing no measurable change in unemployment, to conclude that labor is immune to the laws of supply and demand.

          When people are engaged in policy-based evidence making, they shouldn’t be surprised when they turn out to be right all along.

          1. Libertarianism is informed by libraries of bullshit economics and bullshit behavioral assumptions, and is among the most ends-oriented political philosophies out there. Every single discussion you guys have entails throwing widely accepted facts out the window so that you can maintain your preconceptions.

            1. Shorter Tony: You guys are poo-poo heads!

            2. Libertarianism is informed by libraries of bullshit economics and bullshit behavioral assumptions, and is among the most ends-oriented political philosophies out there. Every single discussion you guys have entails throwing widely accepted facts out the window so that you can maintain your preconceptions.

              If everything else he said throughout his history at H&R had been completely rational, that paragraph, in and of itself, would serve to discredit any valid point he’d ever made.

              Tony, you are, indeed, a retard.

            3. Blah blah blah. Calm down, Susan.

              Because econ 101 is so bullshit.

        3. is that you’re all dedicated to the conclusion that global warming is a hoax

          That’s bullshit.

          For example, *I’m* not dedicated to that proposition. Steve McIntyre is definitely not dedicated to that proposition (as the attendees at one Heartland Institute convention discovered to their chagrin when they invited him to speak).

          As someone who trained to be a scientist (physics), I am pretty appalled at the shoddy work that gets one feted in Climate Science.

          I accept that doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will on its own with no feedbacks increase the Earth’s surface temperature by some amount (depending on your latitude).

          I know the CAGW hypotheses that increased CO2 will through a series of positive feedback loops cause runaway warming is bullshit – the Earth’s climate is not producing the expected feedbacks.

          And having studied various scientific fads like Lysenkoism, N-Rays and having had a lab professor who made students who analyzed observations in a bullshit manner cry (yes cry – he reduced several people to tears during their presentations), I recognize a great deal of unscientific and even delusional behavior in the fields called climate science.

          And your religion’s inability to cope with criticism, it’s denial that its beliefs are belied by observations, it’s willingness to embrace frauds and cheats and confidence men and elevate them sickens me.

          1. And your religion’s inability to cope with criticism, it’s denial that its beliefs are belied by observations, it’s willingness to embrace frauds and cheats and confidence men and elevate them sickens me.

            In that regard it’s not entirely different from his moral, political, and economic theories.

      2. “Dismissing Bailey’s defense or the adjustment is not merited?”

        Neither is merited. There must be more discussion.

  26. Making money online is never easy, because it has now become me. I freelance on the Internet, earning $ 375 per hour. By doing the work only requires that you have a computer and an Internet connection, you can have one in your home to get more time with his family. A little effort and a handsome profit dream is just a click away …

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  27. Christ. All this team bullshit is depressing.

  28. In any event, we already have a cure to the CO2 ‘problem’: natural gas, specifically mass produced natgas from fracking.

    1. It’s still a fossil fuel that adds CO2 to the atmosphere. It’s just more efficient. That makes it less-bad in the eyes of the AGW cultists. They won’t be happy until we’re on self-sufficient communes, only trading locally in a sustainable lifestyle. There’s a word for that: Poverty. That’s what they want: Romantic poverty.

      1. I thought that was called serfdom, feudalism and the Dark Ages.

  29. If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything. ~ Mark Twain

    The day I made that statement, about the inventing the internet, I was tired because I’d been up all night inventing the Camcorder. ~ Al Gore

  30. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week……….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  31. I understand why you’d want to throw out spikes and anomalies (in either direction), but I’d think the changes would even out in the long run.

  32. One of the biggest problems with all this is they are claiming to be able to detect and predict 1/10 degree or less changes from data that has historically been recorded in whole degrees.

    When measuring anything you can’t have a precision of less than the smallest unit used to take the measurements.

    It wasn’t just the “hide the decline” e-mails, there was the Harry Read Me text file with its mentions of “artificial adjustment” and “very artificial adjustment” “false WMO codes” and having a “proper result” only by “including a lot of garbage”.

    That admission that their data was a huge mess and they couldn’t make sense out of it so they were just going to fake it, THAT is what got the claws and fangs out.

    Another item that came to light, separate from “climategate”, was the reveal that the famous study of bristlecone pine trees on the Yamal Peninsula involved only TWELVE trees and of those only ONE tree showed the “hockey stick” of increasing growth ring thickness.

    The “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick” relates to that one tree, which circa 1960 began to reduce the thickness of its growth rings. The “hide” part was in the graph where the data plot of that tree was chopped off at 1960 and the end of the line buried behind other lines.

    In other words, the limited study of a dozen old trees proved nothing, except that trees make lousy thermometers.

  33. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ……….. http://www.Moneykin.Com

  34. Tony, I lurk here a lot, but post little.

    Re: Science. Science does not attack its critics. At the heart of real, honest-to-god science is a willingness – in fact, an eagerness – to test out the theory in the lab called “REALITY.” Einstein looked forward to the eclipse on May 29, 1919, as did the rest of his colleagues, to see if his predictions – i.e. his theory (not his LAW) – would prove right or wrong. http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

    Try to read that article, Tony, and perhaps you will understand why most of us find “climatology” (which I choose intentionally because it is closer to “scientology” than “science”) to be bullshit. At the point at which models fail, they are discarded, or re-tooled. i.e. It’s back to the drawing board. No scientist worth an ounce of salt can continue to claim the models are RIGHT! when reality keeps proving them wrong.

  35. There’s a finer philosophical point here I often use with the intractable, and it’s a simple question: what would it take for you to admit your position is wrong? If you can’t answer that question, Tony, then you’re not engaged in an honest debate – and you’re most certainly not involved in a scientific endeavor. I know exactly what it would take for me to believe AGW: for starters, the models would need to accurately reflect reality. Until that happens, it’s not science and they might as well be claiming the Earth is flat.

    “The burden is on he who asserts.” AGW has failed miserably to meet its burden of proof – again and again. It need not be taken seriously until it has a model that fits even the historical data, much less makes accurate predictions going forward. You can screed all you want, but until your climatologists have an accurate model, I don’t care if they’ve got 2700 or 27,000,000 other knuckleheads who agree. All that tells me is exactly how piss-poor the state of education, research, and modeling is in that community. It isn’t science, however.

  36. my best friend’s ex-wife makes $65 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her check was $13740 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this…………..

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  37. Re: “the data are affected over the decades by shifts in station locations, instrument changes, and urban heat islands.”

    By “urban heat islands,” I assume you mean cities and other areas with lots of concrete and black tops.

    Since a “Study shows the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than predicted because of plants” http://phys.org/news/2014-10-co2-atmosphere.html, I, as a layperson, wonder how much of the increase is caused by urban heat islands.

    See: “Does the ‘fireplace-brick effect’ contribute to global warming?” http://relevantmatters.wordpre…..l-warming/

    Excerpt:

    No doubt much if not most of the “fireplace-brick” heat re-radiated by sun-warmed structures escapes into space. But I suspect a lot of it may be trapped in the troposphere by green-house gases and is helping warm the earth overall, or at least helping warm the more populated land masses where many and maybe the majority of the temperature measurements are taken.

    Since 100 years ago, when the earth was cooler by 1.4 F degrees, the human race has added billions of more structures that, in addition to displacing an unfathomable number of CO2-absorbing trees, equate to possibly millions of square miles of heat-absorbing/re-radiating surfaces. Hence these questions:

    Cont’d….

    1. Cont’d from above…

      How much of the man-made structures’ and roads’ re-radiated heat (coupled with the heat of billions of engines that didn’t exist a century ago) has contributed to earth’s one-degree temperature rise?

      How much of that re-radiated heat becomes trapped in our atmosphere by increased CO2?

  38. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.jobsaudit.com

  39. Don’t worry Ron. They have the discrepancy between reality and models covered too.

    Since 2000, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 0.06? C; a fraction of what was predicted by the IPCC during the 1990s. This apparent plateau has been used as ammunition by climate deniers who accuse scientists of over-inflating results from climate models. Marotzke and Forster’s new paper analyzes the methodologies of climate models, revealing no inherent flaws in the models, even when they don’t match observations. They also conclude that this century’s slight increase in surface temperature, which deniers are labeling as a “pause,” is actually due to natural climate fluctuations. Many other metrics, including ocean temperature, show that the climate is indeed changing.

    http://www.iflscience.com/envi…..not-flawed

  40. my classmate’s mom makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $16174 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here……………
    ????? http://www.navjob.com

  41. “Let’s forget the longer term global record for now.”

    But that’s what the scandal is about. It is quite evident, as Bailey goes on laboriously to show, that no one could get away with making false adjustments after the satellites came on line to keep them honest. What is in question is whether earlier hot decades like the thirties are being adjusted coolward to change the slope of the whole century. Homewood has found quite a few station records that really don’t look like artifacts to which properly corrective algorithms have been applied. Furthermore, these corrections have hit in a series of waves. Surely, if the corrections were so obviously needed, they should have been done. Once. But it shouldn’t be the case that the past just keeps getting colder, as more need to correct is mysteriously discovered.

    If this is a false scandal, it would be because Homewood is provably wrong about these records. If Bailey knows that to be true, he should say so. (And I would certainly be listening, as I tend to trust his judgment on this subject.) But this particular post is almost completely beside the point.

  42. Disappointing is getting to be Ron’s ground state.

    “Models run hotter ” is a variation on the latest cool-aid meme from Monckton , Soon & Co. – the climate computer models run hotter than these empirical trends who have floated a lot of press releases on the back of junk model of their own that pays homage to the ‘irreducible complexity rhetoric of Intelligent Design both in its title and by artificialy and arbitarily constraining climate feedback as though the earth’s most complex dynamic system were a squawk box with a squelch button.

    It took a lot of caveats to get it published the far side of the world , and Ron should by now be aware of just how unserious a scientific exercise must be to get the attention of Breitbart’s Delingpole, and Booker of the Telegraph.

    Why doesn’t he pick on a climate science journal for a change of pace ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.