CLIMATEGATE – uh-oh someone has been has been screwing with the data

From Watts Up with That? (BTW, this guy should forever be honoured in every country in the world)

People keep saying ?Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn?t mean the data is bad. That doesn?t mean the earth is not warming.?

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasufo . Climategate doesn?t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say ?Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists? papers out of the journals ? but that doesn?t affect the data, the data is still good.? Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we?ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they ?homogenize? it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there?s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

And then he embarks on a study of how GHCN has manipulated the raw data. The same raw data that is used by CRU and manipulated again.

Here is what he has found. Instead of this data, which shows cooling, being used for the raw data to plot temperature in Darwin, they used this crooked one. They have cooked the raw data before disseminating it, they call it homogeneity and here is what they did to the raw data to homogenise it at Darwin.

What I call that is fraud, lies, scandal and corruption. If the raw data from GHCN is bent and from the graphs it sure is bent, like instead of a reverse hockey stick it is bent into a Mann type hockey stick, then every model, every calculation, every agreement, every report is corrupted in the same way. Go and read the whole post, then come back hear and I dare you to say the science is settled.

The science isn’t settled, it is destroyed. In a few years having Climate Scientist on your resume will doom you to a life of unemployment. The information just keeps on building. Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay were nothing compared to this. They should be pardoned really because their fraud was small change compared to this fraud about to be perpetrated on the world.

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of ? mmm ? let me say ?interesting? adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying ?Falsus in unum, falsus in omis? (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station ?adjustments? are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can?t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Halt this nonsense now. Stand up and shout at your MPs, shout over the Warmenisers. They have deceived you and you should be angry. I know I am.

29%
×