Fake News? What About Fake Science?

In 2009, the climate science community was rocked with the release of hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  The emails seemed to suggest that there was a concerted effort to manipulate data and suppress deniers.  As Wikipedia reports, committees were set up to examine those claims and their findings were reported as follows:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests."

Now, fast forward to February 2017.  The prestigious scientific journal Nature announced that it would no longer publish scientific papers unless the conclusions were replicated by independent peers in the same field of science.  The basis of this decision by Nature was a 2016 survey in which scientists claimed that more than 70% of them were unable to reproduce the results of published scientific papers.  This was also the case in climate change science findings.

This also comes on the heals of two other "shocking" disclosures.

Earlier this year, Dr. John Bates -- a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center -- disclosed that temperature data was manipulated to hide an 18-year hiatus in global warming in advance of the Paris climate summit.  This lead directly to Obama's signature on a climate agreement that would cost this country, and the world, trillions of dollars in spending.

Then, there was the early retirement of well-known climatologist Judith Curry who wrote an essay as to why she was retiring.  Her most poignant reason follows in this quote from that essay:

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

That brings me to a final point.  In Chinese myth, there is something called the Money Tree.  An ornate holy tree that is supposed to bring good fortune.  Today, given all of the above, the true Money Tree appears to be climate science.  As long as climate research points to climate change as a real problem, those scientists can be reassured that money will keep flowing towards them for additional research.  And, it appears that it doesn't matter if 70% of that research is flawed or not reproducible.  Thank God that Nature has finally stood up to fight this kind of Fake Science, which is another form of Fake News!

References:

Climatic Research Unit email controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/the-journal-nature-is-going-to-begin-requiring-reproducibility-in-submitted-papers/

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers': http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud? http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

Disenchanted climatologist Judith Curry resigns from Georgia Tech: http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/

Money Tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_tree_(myth)

The Unsettled Science of Climate Change

Climate change and global warming alarmists tell us that man-caused global warming is a real and settled science.  They also tell us that to deny it is tantamount to not believing in science at all.  Thus, when a scientist tells us something, we should embrace it as fact.

My problem, is that all too often, scientific studies contradict each other; leaving the person reading them with a severe headache.  Perfect examples of this were two recent stories, just a month apart from each other, regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

The first appeared online at EcoWatch.com on November 9th of this year titled: "Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High".

Slightly less than a month later, the U.K. Independent published an online article with this title: "Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row".

So, who to believe? Both headlines are based on "true" scientific studies and supposed measurements.  If "the" science is settled, why two divergent results?  It is no wonder that sane people find climate change alarmism extremely difficult to take seriously.  Which story will be in your Global Warming/Climate Change Internet bookmark?  My guess is that you are a "believer" and on the political left, the first story is the most believable as noted by this graphic from Pew Research:

Click on Image to Enlarge

Tell me that climate change alarmism isn't more politics and less science!

References:

Climate Change Denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High: http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/carbon-hit-record-high/

Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html

Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/

pb

Record Heat? Where Are the Records Being Broken?

By presenting the following map, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) claims that the first 6 months of this year continued the earth's record setting warming trend:

Of course, this follows a similar map that claims 2014 was the hottest year on record:

In both of these maps, the darker pink is where temperatures are much warmer than normal and the red is where record heat has occurred.  For the U.S., the only area on these two maps where there was record heat was on the West Coast.  Most consistently, in the cities on California's coast line.

Logically, it would follow that if records are being set, previous records would have to fall.  So, I went to the weather site Intellicast and found the current weather data for the following California cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  Once there, I clicked on the "Historical Averages" section which brought me to a webpage where you not only get average temperatures, rainfall, etc., you also can look at record highs for each day of the year and in what year that record was set.  Checking all 365 days of weather records for those three cities, not one record high temperature was broken in either 2014 or 2015.  In fact, many of the record highs for any given day go back decades.  For example, the hottest single-day record for the month of July was set in 1930.

Is this proof that global warming and NOAA (including NASA) are all frauds?  Perhaps the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind (see link below).

References:

The First Half of 2015 Was the Hottest Ever: http://time.com/3966587/2015-climate-change-heat/

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

Intellicast Historical Data for San Diego: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0982

Intellicast Historical Data for Los Angeles: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0638

Intellicast Historical Data for San Fransisco: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0987

The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time--Part VI:  http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/7/21/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-v