MoS2 Template Master

David Rose

Onder de titel, ‘How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth’, schreef David Rose een vervolg op zijn eerdere artikel over de manipulatie van temperatuurdata door NOAA. Dit artikel heeft veel stof doen opwaaien en heeft de verhoudingen tussen protagonisten en antagonisten van de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’) weer op scherp gezet.

In vorige ‘postings’ heb ik uitvoerig aandacht geschonken aan deze ontwikkelingen. Zie hier en hier.

Maar de storm is nog niet gaan liggen.

David Rose:

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper [by Karl et al]– the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper [the Karl paper] which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust. …

[The Karl paper] made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century. Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative. …

There can be no doubting the impact of this document. It sat prominently in the scientific briefings handed out to international negotiators, including EU and UK diplomats. …

No wonder, then, that our revelations were met with fury by green propagandists. Some claimed the MoS had published ‘fake news’. …

Yet perhaps more damaging is the claim from some in the green lobby that our disclosures are small beer. In fact, their importance cannot be overstated. They strike at the heart of climate science because they question the integrity of the global climate datasets on which pretty much everything else depends.

The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues. And as he explained to the MoS, one key concern is the reliability of new data on sea temperatures issued in 2015 at the same time as the Pausebuster paper.

It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.

They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot. …. And without this new dataset there would have been no Pausebuster paper. If, as previous sea water evidence has shown, there really has been a pause in global warming, then it calls into question the received wisdom about its true scale.

Then there is the matter of timing. Documents obtained by this newspaper show that NOAA, ignoring protests by Dr Bates, held back publication of the version 4 sea dataset several months after it was ready – to intensify the impact of the Pausebuster paper. It also meant more sceptical voices had no chance to examine the figures.

En zo waren er nog wat problemen met het ‘Pausebuster paper’.

David Rose concludeerde:

We cannot allow such a vital issue for our future to be mired in half truths and deceptions.

Lees verder hier.

Het huidige incident staat niet op zichzelf, maar maakt deel uit van een brede en stelselmatige manipulatie van temperatuurdata door de NOAA, NASA-GISS en HadCRUT.

Onder de titel, ‘Global Temperature Data Manipulation’, gaf Kenneth Richard op de website ‘NoTricksZone’ van Pierre Gosselin onlangs een vrij gedetailleerd en goed gedocumenteerd overzicht van de datamanipulatie die doelbewust en op grote schaal heeft plaatsgevonden in de klimatologie.

Kenneth Richard:

Over the course of the last few decades, overseers of the 3 main 19th century-to-present global temperature data sets — NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT — have been successfully transforming the temperature record to the shape dictated by climate models. Namely, there has been a concerted effort to cool down the past — especially the 1920s to 1940s warm period — and to warm up the more recent decades, especially after about 1950. In this way, a trend of steep linear warming emerges that looks similar to the linear shape of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the 20th and 21st centuries. A better fit between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and surface temperature helps to imply causation, and this ostensible correlation-turned-causation can then be used to justify policy decisions aimed at eliminating fossil fuel energies.

Lees verder hier.

Natuurlijk, de meeste klimatologen houden zich niet met dit soort temperatuurmetingen bezig en zijn dus niet verantwoordelijk voor de aldus geproduceerde nepcijfers, die slechts tot doel hebben het klimaatalarmisme aan te wakkeren. Het merendeel van hen bestaat uit serieuze en integere wetenschappers. Toch is het opvallend dat zij hun stem niet verheffen uit protest tegen dit soort praktijken. In al die jaren dat ik mij nu met klimaat bezig houd, ken ik daarvan geen voorbeelden. Zou het niet eens tijd worden dat zij dat gaan doen? Collegiale loyaliteit is in het algemeen een eervolle en waardevolle houding. Maar men kan het ook overdrijven.

Voor mijn eerdere bijdragen over klimaat en aanverwante zaken zie hierhier, hier, hier en hier.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email