Global Warming Fraud Exposed

_{Barry Arrington

February 9, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Telegraph reports alarmists have been caught “adjusting” temperature readings to create warming that did not actually occur.

UPDATE. This site shows the data much better.

This leads to a greater question for our subjectivist friends: If the fraud did in fact occur, and the warmist who committed the fraud sincerely subjectively believed that committing scientific fraud is a good thing if it serves the greater good of environmentalism, was the scientific fraud then good?

Comments

alanbrad: There is simply no way to prove the “modifications” done to the South American data was done correctly. As the modifications are public and based on statistical and metrological methods, it is possible to show whether or not the modifications were done correctly. Alternatively, you could analyze the original data with your own independent methodology.Zachriel_{February 17, 2015
February
02
Feb
17
17
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

hrun0815 and Zachriel: You are ignoring the main point of my origional post. There is simply no way to prove the "modifications" done to the South American data was done correctly. And, conviently, the "modifications" do end up supporting the Global Warming theory. I simply cannot support a theory that is dependent on untested calculations to be then used to make my electic bill more expensive. You can trust these men to do things correctly, but I don't. It is too easy to make up a bunch of data that supports your theory.alanbrad_{February 17, 2015
February
02
Feb
17
17
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

alanbrad: it just shows that there is no credibility left in the theory of Global Warming. Its pretty obvious at this point. It's pretty obvious at this point. It just shows you didn't read the study, not even the abstract. alanbrad: the study is saying its contravercial, then does its own modifications They didn't do "modifications", but looked for the trend at rural stations, ignoring urban stations.Zachriel_{February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: it just shows that there is no credibility left in the theory of Global Warming. Its pretty obvious at this point. The defenders of the “modifications” are saying it is because of the heat island effect, and the study is saying its contravercial, then does its own modifications. The reality is, the whole thing is just a lame attempt to cover up some very obvious manipulation done to get more grant money.
Translation: I have no clue what the hell is going on, but I do know that those scientists are bunch of greedy lying liars who lie because they are greedy!hrun0815_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: it just shows that there is no credibility left in the theory of Global Warming. Its pretty obvious at this point. The defenders of the "modifications" are saying it is because of the heat island effect, and the study is saying its contravercial, then does its own modifications. The reality is, the whole thing is just a lame attempt to cover up some very obvious manipulation done to get more grant money.alanbrad_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

alanbrad: From the article you posted: “The conclusion ... So they cite three groups that find the urban heat effect is not significant. Then the study you quote does it's own study, using an independent methodology. Do you understand the study and what they found?Zachriel_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

From the article you posted: "The conclusion of the three groups is that the urban heat island contribution to their global averages is much smaller than the observed global warming. The topic is not without controversy." Of course there is a contraversy, because these temps were measured too close to the city in the past. How do you know you are right unless you go back in time and measure the temp further away, calculate the error, then compare it to what you are calculating now?alanbrad_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

alanbrad: The problem I have with this manipulation of data is that there is no way to know if they are doing correctly. That is incorrect. You can study the raw data and the methodology yourself. Here's one such study: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findingsZachriel_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

The problem I have with this manipulation of data is that there is no way to know if they are doing correctly. If you doubt the scientists, you are labeled a "denier" or "anti-science" or a ludite. I know from experience that it is easy to get things wrong if you have no way to test your calculations before using them. There has been no discussion of this, the "climate change" proponents are just saying that it is an ajustment for the heat island effect. So we are just supposed to trust them because they are "scientists" and we aren't? Sorry, but I am not doing that. There is too much at stake just to let people get away with passing off untested theories as fact.alanbrad_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

I would like to add that selecting individual press reports that seem to confirm one's position while ignoring tons of peer-reviewed literature that contradicts it is also a fallacy (cherry-picking).Piotr_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

OK skram and hrun , stop patting each other on the back http://drtimball.com/blog/Eugen_{February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

... and this round ended like all the other ones about global warming. A ridiculous OP, after a little while a sound refuting of the ridiculous OP, and everybody moves one.hrun0815_{February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Yes, hrun0815, it seems like Barry and others have no interest in discussing the rebuttal presented on Curry's blog by Rohde, Hausfather, and Mosher. Maybe we can pique their interest with a few more excerpts, this time from thread comments. Mosher writes:
There was charge laid out long ago, a charge that continues to be brought up. NOAA cooked the data and Hansen and GISS cooked the data. Adjustments were a fraud and possible criminal. You know I have friends in the business who actually had to stop working and spend a long time answering investigators questions. Words have consequences. Booker doesn't get that, Shub doesnt, Carrick doesnt and perhaps Judith doesn't. These guys could not do their science, they had to convince investigators that they hadn't been cooking the books. The news went from a blog to fox news to a congressman to the GSA.. and good people suffered. On to adjustments. We decided that a better approach would be an algorithm. 1. you couldn't accuse it of having political motives 2. you could test it on synthetic data 3. you could vary parameters and test it. 4. you could repeat the same work and get the same answer. 5. it could scale to 40000 stations. In short we decided to take a hands off approach. Test the approach independently. verify that it wasn't biased. then apply it to the problem. The approach will warm some stations and cool others. Period. Along comes a booker or a delingpole or homewood, whoever, and they pick a station that warms. 1. They claim that the adjustment is a scandal. 2. people link to comments that adjustments are criminal And then you ask me to explain the adjustment!! WTF? The explanation is simple: an algorithm tested to be fair, adjusted the station. It had no “reasons” no “motives” no human bias. It looks at the neighbors and decided that the station was inconsistent with its neighbors.
Where do you see fraud, Barry? The adjustments have been done not manually, not in one direction, but by a transparent algorithm, with the net effect close to zero globally. The code of the algorithm is available, so is the data, and anyone with a minimum technical ability can check that. This is as transparent as it can be. What is your response?skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Your move, Arrington.
What do you mean, your move? He already stomped his foot on the ground and whined about the nefarious and incompetent climate scientists. What more do you want him to do?hrun0815_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

And the code doing adjustments is openly available. No need to blindly "trust the guys doing the monkeying." Anyone with time and minimal expertise can check what the code does. Your move, Arrington.skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: the temps have been monkeyed with but you can trust the guys doing the monkeying; it makes no difference. Nowadays, the process of homogenization is done by statistical methods, subject to review, and confirmed by more than one methodology.Zachriel_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Barry:
I see a skeptic saying that the temps have been monkeyed with. I see a conformist say yes, the temps have been monkeyed with but you can trust the guys doing the monkeying
Go ahead and reread the rebuttal for you don't understand its substance. It wasn't the "conformists" who adjusted the data with their own bias. It was done by an unbiased code. That is why some adjustments are up, some down, and the net is close to zero. UDEditors: You say the code was unbiased. That, in itself, is reason to believe that it was biased.skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

skram @ 46, I see a skeptic saying that the temps have been monkeyed with. I see a conformist say yes, the temps have been monkeyed with but you can trust the guys doing the monkeying; it makes no difference. Well, if it makes no difference, why do it? One thing I do know, after climategate, "hide the decline," refuse to show the source data, almost uniformly wrong computer projections, the hockey stick, etc., etc., etc. the alarmists have zero credibility. In that respect, they are kind of like you. So, when I see a conformist come in and say, "don't worry; all is well; we would never mislead you," I am skeptical.Barry Arrington_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Barry, we can argue all day about Curry's position on the skeptic scale. That would be an interesting diversion. What do you have to say on the substance of the technical rebuttal?skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Failed Climate Predictions EnjoY! Be sure to check out all of the categories...Joe_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

OK Scram, if you want to use Wikipedia as a source, this is what Wikipedia says concerning her:
While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.
Suggesting, as she does, that skeptics should not be tarred and feathered, does not make her a skeptic. As for your facile charges of hypocrisy, this is not a matter of the genetic fallacy. You ask the readers to believe you when you say Curry is a skeptic (for the obvious reason of attempting to insulate her views from a charge of bias). Should we believe you? This is a matter of evaluating your credibility as a witnesses. You have none Mr. "the Holocaust might be alright for all I know."Barry Arrington_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

And note, Barry, that our side didn't simply call Booker a nut and stopped at that. We provided links to a substantial rebuttal by technically competent people. Here is, once again, a summary of that rebuttal:
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.
What do you have to say to this? Nothing so far, except throwing ad hominem bombs.skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Barry:
At any rate, nothing you say has any credibility.
There we go with the genetic fallacy again. And who was it on this thread that said
Piotr and REC, engage in the genetic fallacy much?
May I call you a hypocrite?skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Barry:
Judity Curry does not believe she is a warming skeptic. In fact, she says in this letter that skeptics need to be “countered.”
Nice of you to quote a single word from a 2009 letter, Barry! Curry's position has been evolving: she has been steadily distancing herself from consensus. To such a degree that she now appears on the Wikipedia's list of scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections, along with Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson. None of them denies the reality of warming. All three disagree with the consensus that the warming will be substantial and that we need to do anything about it. Here is an extended quote from a recent (2013) interview at NPR:
Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she's soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, "We just don't know." This message plays well in the House of Representatives, so it's no surprise that Curry was called to testify at a subcommittee hearing there this spring. ... "If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet," she told the committee. But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal. ... Her message that day on Capitol Hill was, in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions.
I think that's enough for an informed person to understand where Judith Curry stands on climate change. She is not a fire-breathing critic like McIntyre or Goddard, but she is in the same category as Lindzen.skram_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

And if skram wants to talk about conspiracy nuts it doesn't have to look ant further than his own ilk who scream "CONSPIRACY" at the mention of Academic Freedom bills. Talk about seeing stuff tat isn't there- Booker has nothing on evolutionists.Joe_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

The 19th century saw an end to the little ice age. That we are warmer now should not be any surprise because we are no longer in that cooler era. The warming anomaly is less than the daily temperature variation. AND we have daily temperature changes that dwarf the warming anomaly. The climate changes- that is what it does and it does so regardless of us. When the next Maunder minimum occurs the alarmists will see the real driver of our climate doing its thing.Joe_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Barry Scepticism is a matter of degree and comes in all sorts of flavours. Curry may not regard herself as a sceptic but it would be hard to find a climatologist who is more sceptical. But instead of scoring debating points against Skram why not address the points in the link he gave? Or do you now accept that Booker was wrong?Mark Frank_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Skram:
Judith Curry is another warming skeptic
Judity Curry does not believe she is a warming skeptic. In fact, she says in this letter that skeptics need to be "countered." In my objectivist ethical framework, trying to win an argument by misrepresenting the viewpoint of experts I cite is unethical. Does your subjectivism help you do that? Of course, I suppose we should not be surprised. You recently suggested that it is possible that the Holocaust might have been an affirmatively good thing. I guess we shouldn't put anything past someone who could say that. At any rate, nothing you say has any credibility. Did you really think I wouldn't check on this? Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

#34 Skram Thanks for that link (from a technically literate but sceptical community) which pretty much clears up why the adjustments are made and shows they have no net effect globally. As one of the (clearly sceptical) commenters said:
Don Monford wrote: “You convinced me some time ago that BEST is about as good as we are going to get with what we have to work with in the surface data realm.” +1 And I used to be very suspicious indeed. I think that Booker and Delingpole suddenly jumping all over this will eventually reflect badly on them. Which is a shame, as they have previously shone a spotlight on some terrible scientific malpractice by alarmists. I think they hope the adjustments are the silver bullet that will finally kill CAGW alarmism. They aren’t.
Mark Frank_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Barry, I say it is a good answer... However, I have made some friends up north of Canada they may not agree with your assumptions. They live there... I have asked them to provide a full report... I hope you don't mind...?Quest_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply