Jim Lacey explains clearly the problem with global warming science: it’s so hopelessly corrupt that it’s no longer possible to tell what the truth is any more.
Incidentally, this corruption is not a new problem. In 1934, the now-forgotten author C.P. Snow, was a trained physicist, examined scientific dishonesty in his book The Search. I don’t own a copy of that book, but Dorothy L. Sayers did, and she used it as an important plot device in Gaudy Night, a murder mystery set at an Oxford college. Here’s her summary (emphasis mine):
“I never read the book,” said the Warden.
“Oh, I did,” said the Dean. “It’s about a man who starts out to be a scientist and gets on very well till, just as he’s going to be appointed to an important executive post, he finds he’s made a careless error in a scientific paper. He didn’t check his assistant’s results, or something. Somebody finds out, and he doesn’t get the job. So he decides he doesn’t really care about science after all.”
“Obviously not,” said Miss Edwards. “He only cared about the post.”
“But,” said Miss Chilperic, “if it was only a mistake –”
“The point about it,” said Wimsey, “is what an elderly scientist says to him. He tells him: ‘The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way for false statements by intention. And a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit.’ Words to that effect. I may not be quoting quite correctly.”
With that point in mind, consider this passage from Lacey’s article, one of many pointing to the corrupt practices climate change scientists use. Through these practices, they have so seriously debased the scientific coin that it is no longer possible to distinguish truth from lies. No wonder, reading this, that people around the world are turning their backs on climate change:
The scientists at Great Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admit to using statistical sleights of hand to change the temperature record, so as to show more warming. And then, in a total flouting of the scientific method, they tossed out all the original raw data so that no other scientist could check their work. Remarkably, a panel — including a number of persons who stood to gain financially from a global-warming panic or who were personal friends of the accused — found nothing wrong with what the CRU scientists did. Move along; nothing to see here.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is responsible for feeding data into the United States’ Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature record has been caught in a number of “unintentional” mistakes. One of my favorites is replicating Russia’s September temperatures as October’s, thereby significantly increasing the global average. In this regard, I have often wondered how it is that every “mistake” the high priests of global warming make is in the direction of increased warming. Why don’t they ever make a mistake that shows any cooling? My presumption is that after altering the laws of physics, altering the law of averages was child’s play.