Phony data, phony science. All designed to give governments more control.
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Surprises me to see such a shallow argument from you. Pure ideology.
I've said it before and I will say it again: I'm not qualified to say. But, there are thousands who are....via education, profession, a life-time of experience. Folks who have spent their entire lives studying weather, climate and the effects of those things on the earth. And, virtually every single one of them agrees that climate change is a fact of life and that fossil fuel emissions contribute or are most likely to cause it.
On your side of the argument you have some people with significant and noteworthy credentials who can't be dismissed out of hand, I suppose. But damn....it's pretty close to 10 to 1 in terms of every recognizable and empirically supportable study.
How can any thinking person dismiss all that based strictly on ideological pre-dispositions?
Think COG, think.