Real Climate Science

The NIWA data adjusters got away with this by arguing in court that their tampering was based on standard scientific practice, citing a station that had moved to higher elevation and needed to be adjusted for.

The claim of “standard scientific practice” is grossly inadequate for data sets delivered to politicians to influence major policy decisions. Once scientists start tampering with data, it opens the door to confirmation bias at best -and outright fraud at worst. Even if they did one adjustment in a way which can’t easily be proven incorrect, that doesn’t mean they accounted for all other possible sources of error. They could for example focus on adjustments which cool the past, and largely ignore errors in the other direction. Or they could simply weight adjustments in one direction more heavily than adjustments in the other direction.

The fact that nearly every single data set has been repeatedly adjusted to increase the slope of warming, is overwhelming evidence that the adjustments are illegitimate. Particularly since many of the tampering scientists are vocal global warming advocates, and have a huge conflict of interest.

The best policy (which is standard for large data sets) is to assume a Monte Carlo distribution of error, and leave the measured data alone.

The standard needs to be that the scientists who made the decision to tamper with the data, have to prove that they are correct before they start tampering- not that skeptics have to prove them wrong when they are caught ex post facto. Furthermore, they need to prove that their software correctly implements their tampering specification. There is normally zero quality control when scientists start programming.

When scientists turn a negative trend into a positive trend (like in the US data set since 1930) that indicates a signal to noise ratio of zero – meaning the data is worthless.

Skeptics need to take control of the debate, and stop pandering to the plausible deniability front which tamperers are hiding behind.

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.

We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/

Experts have always told us that global warming hurts third world countries first, like Chicago and Detroit

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/WaterTDeptUS.png

WILL THE United States’ energy revolution hurt the planet or help it? Will fracking for natural gas make fighting climate change harder or easier? Can the United States meet its goal of cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020? The answer to all of these crucial questions could depend on a colorless, odorless gas that shows up all over the place.

The substance is methane, the primary component in natural gas. Methane rises from landfills, escapes from coal mines, exits from cows’ posteriors, seeps out of drilling sites and leaks from the pipes that transport the fuel to large power plants and countertop stoves. Burning methane produces about half the heat-trapping carbon dioxide as burning coal, the greatest climate villain of the fossil fuels. But, uncombusted, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right, a heat-trapper many times more potent than carbon dioxide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/extracting-a-sane-energy-policy-around-methane/2014/04/04/4e180cbe-bb79-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

After six months of record cold, the morons at the Washington Post are worried about trapped heat and cow farts.

Climate experts say that they know Earth’s temperature to either 0.01 degrees or 0.001 degrees. But as of 1990 they were somehow unaware that Earth had been heating out of control for the past century.

The Albuquerque Police Department has been gunning down citizens left and right. They killed a driver 30 yards from me and my family in 1994.

For the past 12 months, global sea ice area has been averaging above normal – and is tied with 1981. Alarmist’s hopes for a meltdown have been shattered.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

Phil Jones has done the standard climate science data tampering by cooling the past, but one year bucked the trend. The year 1878 became much hotter than that year was in 1990. It must to be great to be a climate scientist, and get to rewrite the past – like Winston Smith.