Not So Hot

And here’s the story of how raw data of one temperature monitoring station can be adjusted to make a cooling trend look like an alarming warming trend. I lifted the key graph.  I highly encourage you to read the whole thing and check out other posts on that blog.  Thanks to Anthony Watts and all the contributors to the Watts Up With That? blog.

The black line shows the adjustments added to this station’s actual temperature readings.  The actual temperature readings are shown in blue.  Add them together and you get the red line.

I will reprint the author, Willis Eschenbach’s disclosure:

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

Disturbing Temperature Adjustments

Climategate? Climategate? Climategate?

According to this website, major network news has still not reported on climategate.

And this guy is asks people  “to just  say what they actually know.”  Fair request.  I’ll add that they should separate what they know from what they feel.

When a scientist says I know such-and-such is happening and he really means that he believes it’s happening, that’s irresponsible.  Others don’t pick on the scientist’s misuse of know.  Based on the studies I’ve seen of global warming, no scientist should be able to say they “know what’s happening.”  If you’ve seen study that would allow a scientist to correctly say “they know what’s happening”, please let me know.  I’d like to take a look at it.

Get Around It

In this column, Larry Elder writes about NPR’s treatment of the climategate story.  I enjoyed the column.  I especially enjoyed these two sentences:

One crosses the line from scientist to advocate when, if faced with conflicting or unexpected data, the scientist tries to get around it rather than to understand it. If data causes a re-examination of previously held assumptions, so be it.

Very well said.  We all need someone to keep us honest, even scientists.  Groupthink is a feedback problem that hides the truth.  The problems that led up to the deadly explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986 was a result of groupthink among NASA scientists and engineers.   Hmmm…


While eating lunch with a couple old friends today, I casually mentioned climategate.   They both looked perpelexed, “climategate?”  You know, the hacked e-mails from the climate scientists that makes it look like they were manipulating data to meet their bias, hiding data and keeping global warming skeptics from publishing their work?

“Nope.  Haven’t heard of it.  Can you send me a link?”  I did.

I know my media intake is biased, but I thought this would be bigger news picked up by the mainstream media.  As one of my buddies mentioned, “well, I guess they have to report on Tiger.”

Can you imagine if the busted scientists were the one’s leading the global warming denial efforts?  I can only imagine that news of Tiger’s unfortunate infidelities would have taken a back seat to that news.


As climategate grows, it confirms something I’ve known for a long time.  Scientists are human and they are subject to the same biases, politics, agendas, groupthink and response to incentives as the rest of us.

The funny thing is, I think I recall learning that in my 8th grade science class when studied the history of science.  Scientists that had ideas that didn’t line up with the general consensus of the science community were not treated well.  If the ideas were correct, though, they would eventually win out.  But, it would often take decades, if not centuries, before the truth came out.  Sitting in an 8th grade class you just don’t get a sense for the passage of that time.

If I recall my paradigm shifting lesson, pioneers explain anomalies and those aren’t always well accept by the current members that reinforce the current paradigm.  But, over time, some aspiring scientists who aren’t as tied into the politics of the current paradigm test the new ideas out and over the course of time – sometimes a very long time – if the new ideas appear to be true they’re incorporated into a new paradigm.

Peer review doesn’t quite have the check-and-balance strength that many in the non-science community implicitly believe.  It’s subject to the workings of the paradigm.  Big surprise.  The scientific community and organized religion have strong parallels – both are staffed with humans.

My opinion on global warming?  The climate changes naturally.  It always has and always will.  But, it changes at a slow enough pace for us to adapt.  Yes, that means that 100 or 200 or 200,000 years from now things may be different.  But, things were very different 10,000 years ago and we seem to getting along okay now.  We adapted.  We’ve been measuring temperature, very imperfectly, for a very short time compared to the history of Earth.

The idea that we need to preserve Earth’s climate as it was in 1950 with little variation, to me, is even more self-centered and presumptuous than what global warming believers think of Hummer drivers.

Things change.  Bad stuff will happen, so will good stuff.   As soon as we think we’ve got the Earth temperature-controlled (which won’t happen – sorry kids), we’ll get smacked by an asteroid, comet or gamma burst from a nearby supernova.  Or the Earth’s magnetic field with collapse and expose us to the full brunt of the Sun’s radiation.  Or we’ll simply find out that climate change was necessary to balance something else that we haven’t thought of yet.

Of course, I could be wrong.  But, I’m not asking you to change the way you live now for something that may not be happening.