The Global Warming Scare continues unabated, and now is copiously funded through the government largess being distributed at the whim of the Obama administration. The scare itself is based largely on the data taken by surface stations located around the USA, and this data is thought to be the most accurate. But how accurate is it?
The regulations for the installations are clear, and even come with degrees of inaccuracy for poor locations, those locations that are closer to heat sources than is desirable. So how many are located poorly, and how rigorous is the data?
A meteorolist stumbled onto a very badly mounted surface station, and decided to investigate further. Anthony Watts ultimately enlisted enough volunteers to investigate 860 of the 1221 surface mount weather stations used to generate the temperature data used by global warming prognosticators.
The results: 89% were badly mounted, near other heat sources such as heating units, power transformers, black top parking lots, etc.
This information is now released in a 31 page report, "Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" More details of the investigation including photo documentation is at this website.
Watts also notes other error sources such as the change over of station covering from whitewash to latex paint with a different infrared absorption factor (higher absorption rate). At least one station had electronics mounted inside the station itself. All the errors are in the direction of increased readings (higher temperatures.
Further, Watts and his team found that a computer program is being used to fill in data points where no data was taken. In other words, "original" data is fudged.
In fact the errors (+1.2 degrees F.) exceed the purported global temerature rise (+0.7 degrees F.). If this is the case, then temperatures are not rising, they are falling.
With the prior knowledge that the infamous "hockey stick curve" is created through the use of data adjustments to otherwise benign data, for reasons known only to the originator of the scare who guards his secret reason and method for making adjustments, one cannot avoid regarding this scare with extreme skepticism.
This is especially true given the cash and political factors surrounding the issue. When there is a "victim" (the earth) that is being "saved" by punishing certain "oppressors" and smothering certain "saviors" with Big Bucks, it becomes a secular moral issue; skepticism is definitely warranted. And when the data is highly questionable, even more skepticism is warranted.
9 comments:
What do you think about this?
"928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Beyond the Ivory TowerAnd this?
Dummies Guide to the Hocky Stick ControversyAnd this?
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Martin,
Thanks for the links. Here are my quickly gathered thoughts:
The link “Beyond the Ivory Tower” makes a case for consensus by referring to the agreement of many Science organizations with IPCC conclusions.
It must be understood that the IPCC purged itself completely of all dissenters before its first release; this left only politicos and scientists of the same political persuasion.
What data is being used by the remaining (outside) science organizations is not stated and is not known.
The idea that all peer reviewed articles reach the acceptable conclusion is laughable; no dissenting article would ever be published. This has been shown conclusively.
The appeal is always to consensus; the appeal is never to objective analysis of data combined with objective analysis of methodology.
My conclusion: This first article is a political statement.
The second link discusses the contribution of Bristle Cone Pine Data to the hockey stick graph. Looking at the raw data, it appears from the graph in the article that the Bristle Cone data shows a huge jump up in the early part of the 20th century, followed by a steady, if slow, decline. Their conclusion is that no matter how they manipulate the tree ring data, it doesn’t affect the hockey stick. This is an amazing statement.
The third reference is to a Wikipedia article. I never use Wiki as a reference for anything due to its hackability and input from anybody whatsoever. Nevertheless, if one takes a quick squint at the various surveys, one finds quite a variance in responses, taken from survey to survey.
Again this does not address the actual data nor the actual methodology being used.
It is impossible to make a rational conclusion based on the rhetoric and suspect data that is part and parcel of this issue. Statements such as “what will our grandchildren say if we don’t do something??” are rhetorical fear devices that reveal the lack of actual fearsome data that is credible.
Three things would help this:
1. Totally open and credible data and methodology.
2. Follow the money and eliminate its influence on the science.
3. Identify the political and social engineering, and eliminate its influence on the science.
Several years ago, Dr Watson (of Crick and Watson DNA Nobel fame) made the mistake of criticising a scientific sacred cow: I.Q. differentials between racial groups. Watson was immediately destroyed, losing his career and any peer credibility. Not because his ideas were demonstrated to be false; that would have been acceptable. It was because his attack (gentle as it was) was on a secular holy tenet.
Same goes for other secular holy tenets, and AGW is high amongst them. AGW holds a moral stance amongst the secular Left; it has the potential to punish the hated corporations, while simultaneously redistributing wealth world-wide. The value of this "moral" basis far exceeds the value of any data. Such a moral holy pursuit will produce a moral holy jihad to accompany it. This will not be deterred, rationally because it is a moral passion.
"The link “Beyond the Ivory Tower” makes a case for consensus by referring to the agreement of many Science organizations with IPCC conclusions."
Naomi Oreskes searched the peer-reviewed literature for the keyterm 'climate change.' That's it. She did not search for only IPCC conclusions.
"It must be understood that the IPCC purged itself completely of all dissenters before its first release; this left only politicos and scientists of the same political persuasion."
Do you have evidence that the IPCC was systematically purged of all dissenting opinions? Something more than anecdotes?
"The idea that all peer reviewed articles reach the acceptable conclusion is laughable; no dissenting article would ever be published. This has been shown conclusively."
Do you have evidence that it has been shown conclusively?
"The appeal is always to consensus; the appeal is never to objective analysis of data combined with objective analysis of methodology."
The appeal is to consensus only because it's logical to do so. If a large number of experts in a field say something about that field, then there is a strong probability they know what they are talking about more than you and me.
"My conclusion: This first article is a political statement."
So first, GW isn't being caused by humans. Then you are shown how the scientific literature does not reflect much evidence that contradicts this, so now you say the wide variety of scientific literature is biased. Isn't this is a perfect example of 'moving the goalposts?'
"The second link discusses the contribution of Bristle Cone Pine Data to the hockey stick graph. Looking at the raw data, it appears from the graph in the article that the Bristle Cone data shows a huge jump up in the early part of the 20th century, followed by a steady, if slow, decline. Their conclusion is that no matter how they manipulate the tree ring data, it doesn’t affect the hockey stick. This is an amazing statement."
Why is it amazing? They are saying that the data always returns the hockey stick shape, bristlecone or not. I don't know enough about it, so I must defer expertise. They are climate researchers. I believe them for the same reasons I believe my dentist when he tells me I have a cavity. I believe them for the same reasons I believe the pilot knows how to fly the 737 I'm sitting on.
"The third reference is to a Wikipedia article. I never use Wiki as a reference for anything due to its hackability and input from anybody whatsoever. Nevertheless, if one takes a quick squint at the various surveys, one finds quite a variance in responses, taken from survey to survey."
I agree with you completely about the wiki problem. However, they can occasionally be useful for straightforward lists of items, such as this. Regardless, the implication is that every major scientific body agrees on AGW. But of course, they are ALL Leftists bent on world domination...
"Again this does not address the actual data nor the actual methodology being used."
However, it does reflect major scientific agreement based on SOMETHING. If you really think all these scientific bodies agree on it for the sole purpose of taking over the world and converting everyone to a liberal atheist abortionist tree-hugging hippie pinko commie, then, well... I suppose. Of course, as usual, I would like to see evidence that this is why they are doing it.
"It is impossible to make a rational conclusion based on the rhetoric and suspect data that is part and parcel of this issue. Statements such as 'what will our grandchildren say if we don’t do something??' are rhetorical fear devices that reveal the lack of actual fearsome data that is credible."
But then the climate change skeptics whip out survey results of thousands of astronomers and veterinarians who don't believe in global warming, as if this is somehow 'data' that proves it isn't happening. Then I show you guys the peer-reviewed research performed by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS in the actual FIELD, and nope! It's ALL being fudged by the Left. And yet, somehow this equates to the AGWrs being motivated by ideology but not the skeptics.
Frankly, this makes me scratch my head in bewilderment.
"1. Totally open and credible data and methodology.
2. Follow the money and eliminate its influence on the science.
3. Identify the political and social engineering, and eliminate its influence on the science."
Sure. But it's a two way street. I have zero interest in getting into this too much, as it can go back and forth indefinitely and nothing is conclusive, but The Cato Institute receives funding from ExxonMobile and from the American Petroleum Institute. The American Enterprise Institute receives millions from ExxonMobile.
I refuse to get drawn into the whole conspiracy/funding debate at this point, but I'm just pointing out that it's entirely possible that your side could be biased in the same way you accuse the AGW side of being.
It seems like you've made up your mind a priori and refuse to even CONSIDER the possibility that your side could be the ideologically motivated one.
As for data, I believe it is open for any to see. For instance, you can take the HADCRUT data and plug it into Excel and see for yourself the large upswing in temperature.
It's Leftist data, though. :)
Every major science org gets its information where? NASA/IPCC. How would one expect them to disagree when they are using the same data?
When did I claim the expertise of astronomers and veterinarians? I did not.
My position is merely this: when data appears to be corrupt, and the method appears corrupt, and the system accepts it as valid in order to implement huge transactions, there is no reason for me to accept it and every reason to be skeptical.
You may accept it based on the credentials of the believers. I do not.
We have gone through all this before. If you care to refute the data in the report, please go ahead, show your refutation. Accusations that do not address the report data don't mean very much to me.
Presumably you do not agree with the findings of the report because it conflicts with the consensus. To me that is not a good reason; which data in the report is wrong and why? And why, rationally and logically, would it be correct to ignore potentially erroneous data?
Can I assume that you take the consensus side of every issue, and, deferring to the experts, you will not be discussing anything out of your field? Or perhaps that is just what you wish for me and folks like me... to just shut up?
When I hear arguments of credentials and qualifications, I know I'm on the right track; the appeal to authority is used to deflect attention from the lack of factual truth available to the arguer, an onto what amounts to a personal attack - ad Hominem - on his opponent: "you aren't qualified". Or alternatively, "we aren't qualified". You may not question them.
This is a rational error - a logical fallacy, as we have discussed before. And it is in contrast to the old activist slogan, "speak truth to authority". To whom does that apply? How does that defend consensus worship?
Well, no one who has not checked the calibration and error margins on the equipment, much less the data fudging, is qualified in this case, including the IPCC.
The truth here is that the data and the methods are questioned in a report that examines actual stations on the ground; kindly address that issue and not my right to address it.
BTW, the Bristle Cone Pine data:
When a result cannot be changed by moving one of the variables through its range of values, then that variable should be removed from the equation because it is either trivial or not even related.
In this case, tree ring is related to the issue at hand and likely not in a trivial way. If it could not change the results, then the weighting of the individual component variables is questionable; yet this was ignored. But this is of no consequence because it does not affect the consensus, and that is what is important, yes?
"When did I claim the expertise of astronomers and veterinarians? I did not."
The infamous Oregon Petition is made up of large numbers of people who are not climate scientists. Their opinions on climate change carry almost zero weight. Many of the scientists who were contacted and asked about it expressed surprise that they were on it and disagreement that it reflected their opinions.
"My position is merely this: when data appears to be corrupt, and the method appears corrupt, and the system accepts it as valid in order to implement huge transactions, there is no reason for me to accept it and every reason to be skeptical."
Good. Then you would agree that petitions of the opinions of non-climate-scientists are a dishonest way of trying to sow seeds of doubt about the subject when climate scientists themselves are largely in agreement on it. This is clearly an attempt to make it look like there is disagreement when in fact there is not.
"You may accept it based on the credentials of the believers. I do not."
So you... DON'T get a filling when your dentist tells you to?
"Can I assume that you take the consensus side of every issue, and, deferring to the experts, you will not be discussing anything out of your field? Or perhaps that is just what you wish for me and folks like me... to just shut up?"
I take the consensus side of an issue IF, and only IF, there is overwhelming consensus within experts of that field. For instance, you ask five economists about the causes and possible solutions to the Great Depression, and you'll get five different answers. Therefore in economics I'll read books and come to my own conclusions.
However, if you ask five virologists about the cause of AIDS, all five will tell you that HIV causes it.
If you, not being a virologist at all, think you have some new theory about it, there are two things going on, both possible. Either:
- you are a more brilliant scientist than any of the others
- you are wrong
Now, NOT speaking in terms of dogma, but ONLY in terms of probabilities, which of the above is more PROBABLE? I don't dismiss your opinion on the matter only because you lack credentials or because I have some a priori dogma I must stick to.
I dismiss your opinion as being LESS PROBABLE because of BOTH your lack of credentials AND your number. One non-scientist, and five scientists. One person who has read a few books and done a few experiments at home, vs five people who have spent their entire LIVES devoted to the subject.
I ONLY speak in terms of probabilities. Putting your money on the 7 or 11 as it is more PROBABLE they will come up.
"When I hear arguments of credentials and qualifications, I know I'm on the right track; the appeal to authority is used to deflect attention from the lack of factual truth available to the arguer, an onto what amounts to a personal attack - ad Hominem - on his opponent: 'you aren't qualified'. Or alternatively, 'we aren't qualified'. You may not question them."
See above. Appeal to authority can be valid if the person is an expert in that subject, but I'm not appealing to authority. I'm appealing to a large number of authorities IN THAT FIELD.
"The truth here is that the data and the methods are questioned in a report that examines actual stations on the ground; kindly address that issue and not my right to address it."
You absolutely can address it. :)
From my limited understanding of it, climate change science is based on many many other factors, such as satellite readings, sunlight, moisture, greenhouse gas, etc. The record of land-based temperature measurements is but one small piece of the puzzle, and I have actually seen it's flaws addressed on climate blogs. I know there is concern in the climate community of the urban heat island affect, and it's been accounted for.
For instance, this whole issue is addressed extensively here, here, here, and here.
Regardless, if there is corruption in some data you cannot dismiss the ENTIRE plethora of peer-reviewed literature, as you seem to have done so.
And you also cannot dismiss the possibility that you are falling victim to confirmation bias. For some reason when a climate scientist says "the evidence is clear that AGW is happening" this carries no weight for you because they are ALL corrupt. ALL of them. ALL. AND there's a conspiracy.
But when a climate skeptic says "there is no evidence of AGW" this apparently carries a lot of weight for you even if I point to evidence of him fudging data.
So by your own words, then,'when data appears to be corrupt, and the method appears corrupt, and the system accepts it as valid in order to implement huge transactions, there is no reason for me to accept it and every reason to be skeptical.'
"In this case, tree ring is related to the issue at hand and likely not in a trivial way. If it could not change the results, then the weighting of the individual component variables is questionable; yet this was ignored. But this is of no consequence because it does not affect the consensus, and that is what is important, yes?"
I'm dumb. I can hardly even suss out what either of you are saying.
You say 'likely not in a trivial way.' Climate scientist says you're wrong. What are we talking about? Electrical engineering? Then it's more probable that you are correct. Climate change? Then it's more probable the climate scientist is correct.
Probabilities ONLY.
You are a believer in authority and what the authorities dispense as truth, without question. So be it.
I am a believer in evidence as well as my own capabilities to discern real from phony.
You accuse me of conspiracy theories; I could well accuse you of credulousness or blind support of things unproven.
This will get us nowhere, and has no place in rational discourse; yet it is where this discussion is headed.
We will have to agree to disagree on this; we will get nowhere wasting further time here.
Yes, you are correct. It's time to put this one to rest. Neither of us will ever convince the other. :)
I just want to clear up one last thing, only because it'll drive me nuts if I don't because it's a mischaracterization of me.
"You are a believer in authority and what the authorities dispense as truth, without question. So be it."
I don't 'believe' anything. I certainly don't 'believe' what authorities dispense as truth without question. I only accept, with varying degrees of probability, the likelihood of a proposition based on evidence.
If that evidence is beyond my ability to understand, or I'm too lazy to make a go at it, then I look at what the authorities in that field say.
If they are split 50/50, or 60/30, or other similar fractions, then either I will remain agnostic, or try to make a stab at it myself and come up with my own idea.
If they are almost in complete agreement on it, however, then no matter how I look at the evidence, if I come up with the opposite conclusion then there's a high degree of probability I'm missing something or are in error due to my lack of experience.
That doesn't mean I'm definitely wrong, but just that there's a high degree of probability that I am.
They have years and years of university training, and years and years of experience doing research in the field, whereas I have only graduated from Google University. Or worse, Mainstream Media University.
There is no unquestioning dogma for me.
Just probabilities.
:)
OK then....
Stan
Post a Comment