Global warmists — garbage in, garbage out

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    C P Snow also wrote a short book titled Science and Government, based on his experiences in WWII scientific activities, in which he suggested that an increasing number of society’s decisions will be made, often in secret, by people with expertise in areas of which most people have no comprehension. His examples are the pre-WWII secret debate about radar versus other air defense technologies, and the mid-WWII debate about the effectiveness of strategic bombing: in both cases, the opposing sides were represented by the same men, Henry Tizard and Frederick Lindemann, who was Churchill’s scientific advisor and friend. Tizard won the radar dispute but lost the strategic bombing debate, which I discussed in my post Dresden.

    There was an entirely legitimate need for secrecy in the matters of which Snow wrote, also in at least some of the Cold War scientific debates….there is absolutely no need for such secrecy in climate-prediction debates, and the hiding from public view of temperature records, source code for models, etc, is inexcusable.

     

  2. Charles Martel says

    This one of those (rare) times when I miss Zach and abc. Watching them huff and puff every time a new revelation about the AGW hoax came out was entertaining. Of course, less amusing is the fact that the hoaxsters and their true-believer enablers still hold high positions in science, media and government.

  3. MacG says

    How about Global Warming Speculation?  Like oil futures speculation.  Headline: “Somebody fired an AK47 round in the Middle East.” OMG! OIL is going to get SOOOOOOO expensive! BUY NOW!  so a rush of bargain lusting Blue Light Special shoppers pledge more and more in competition for the same product.  Follow up headline “It was just a wedding. Sorry for the alarm.”  AGW headline “Thermometers indicate the earth has a temperature.  Much of the world will be under water”.   Follow up “Thermometers were held under a bed light just before mom came in.  Sorry for the alarm.  Similarly, we pay the difference.  However I will give them credit for being consistent that so much will be covered n water.   ‘They’ just switched marketing campaigns to a different form of water that will destroy us.  Remember it was the solid form of water predicted in the 70′s now it’s the liquid form.  BUY GREEN NOW!
     
    BTW Loved Chris Muirs Cartoon today

  4. Gringo says

    What killed AGW for me – or better said the need for drastic action ASAP regarding AGW- was the revelation of data fudging. Some of those who were not STEM people, such as the Z-Team, believed this egregious violation of scientific ethics could  be whitewashed away by a hand-picked “commission.” One more authority to cite, one more reason to avoid thinking for oneself. 
     
    In any event, I am looking forward to Labor Day and the end of 100+ degree highs in TX. With rain or with the advent of Labor Day, the highs drop into the 90s- much more bearable. The Kingston Trio nailed it a half century ago with their “Merry Minuet.”
     
    They’re rioting in Africa
    They’re starving  in Spain.
    There’s hurricanes in Florida
    And Texas needs rain.
     
    Some wits have updated the lyrics.
     
    They’re rioting in Tottenham
    They’re flat broke  in Spain.
    There’s hurricanes on Wall Street
    And Texas needs rain.
     
    Some things never change. Give me rain or Labor Day, whichever comes sooner. It will be Labor Day. For those who say, “it’s the heat, not the humidity,” my reply is: I will take 100% humidity at 70-85 degrees over low humidity at 105 degrees any day.
     
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhaDtSBmIrI

  5. Gringo says

    Michael Adams
    I’ll say it again, it will rain after O”Bama is defeated in Nov, 2012.  It’s Biblical.  Look it up!
     
    But in the Bible, aren’t floods a consequence of wrongdoing?  Washing away sins and all that .Do you mean that the defeat of Obama will be  a bad thing?  :)
     
    Methinks there will be a flood if he is re-elected.

Leave a Reply