I am not surprised to find that someone thinks NASA has fudged the climate record …

The scandal of fiddled global warming data -- The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

<Read more ... >

• Data tampering at USHCN/GISS
• NASA Massively Tampering With The US Temperature Record

The joke that is climate science ...

A prestigious institution found that their climate science grants were being severely cut so they gathered some of their most eminent scientists. The idea was that, being scientists, they could figure out a way to calculate the probability of a horse winning a race at odds of at least five-to-one and they would bet the entirety of their existing funds on that horse. When the horse won, the budget would be in good standing and they could continue on as before.

So with this charge, the eminent scientists were told that the race was two weeks away and that they needed a consensus opinion at the end of next week.

The week passes and the scientists gather in the auditorium to present their findings.

The biologists claimed that a horse was too complex to analyze and they couldn't find an answer.

The chemists mutually declared that outside of drugging the horse, there was little insight they could provide.

And, then a climate researcher stood up and said to the gathered crowd of eminent scientists that he had found the answer that explained the situation perfectly.

A hush fell over the room as he started to explain.

The problem was difficult in that the analysis of the actual data had too many anomalies and did not lend itself to analysis. But, having a background in mathematical physics, he was able to develop a solution that he passed by all of the other members of the climate science department.

And, that the solution was unanimously approved by 97% of the entire department without any significant dissent -- except from a few deniers who went on-and-on about the falsity of the approach.

When asked how he was so certain that a particular horse would win, the scientist said that he created a mathematical model and printed out the results. This was a sure thing he proclaimed.

When a chemist raised his hand and asked how he was able to model the horse race so accurately and with such precision, he replied, "first you assume the horse is a perfect sphere running in a complete vacuum."

And, that folks says more about today's climate research models with their deeply flawed and incomplete assumptions, highly manipulated data, and the fact that the models bear little or no resemblance to observed data. Even worse, these models cannot explain why they failed to predict the last seventeen years of a cooling trend or where the missing heat predicted by the models might have gone.

Bottom line ...

We can build mathematical models that purport to give an answer -- but not necessarily the right answer, and certainly not an answer with enough specificity to base onerous economy-changing public policies that support enlarging the size and scope of government, increasing the costs and taxes on all goods and services, and warping the social fabric of modern society by perpetuating a single political party with an agenda based on the failed political model known as socialism.

That no other scientists stand up to challenge the results is perfectly understandable. Some scientists are uncomfortable about commenting on the work of others that does not directly fall within their purview. Other are simply afraid of peer pressure and the potential career-altering dynamics of presenting a contrarian opinion. And, many others, noting that the majority of funding comes from the government, are willing to put forth projects that may confirm or extend the prevailing consensus wisdom instead of attempting to discredit work of established and preeminent scientists who may control thought, funding, and peer-reviewed journals.

So what we have is imperfect knowledge made palatable to the public that disguises corrupt politics and politicians. Labeling anyone who notices that the emperor has no clothes as a denier or worse. A heretic to be cast out of the circle of light -- even if that person is the scientist who tells the church that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Sun revolving around the Earth.

How many scientists are brave enough, or financially secure enough, to buck the government-biased consensus? Certainly not a large proportion of those administrators and hacks whose votes on governmental panels such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) form that consensus.

Science is a process of controlled skepticism where politics provides no rational value. And, unfortunately, science -- at least the science of global climate change -- has been politicized to the point that science itself has been called into question as we are provided with tangible communications between eminent scientists as they attempt to bias the climate change  story in their favor; and more importantly, in the favor of their political patrons.

In fact, we can see that many promises of jobs and an improved economy due to environmental progress is a canard and simply not true. Solyndra went bankrupt. Environmentally-related projects seem rife with cronyism and corruption -- receiving massive government funding or at least guarantees prior to their bankruptcy. Much of the green power is not really suitable for powering an industrialized economy and the single most promising approach, nuclear energy, is an anathema to the environmentalists -- many of whom are re-tread anti-war, anti-America peaceniks with a definite socialist and communist bent.

It appears, at least to a rational observer, that the environmentalists want to impose population control and downsize the economy and standard of living of all Americans. Engaging in wealth redistribution schemes as reparations for a past history of colonialism -- or modernly, for a traumatic insult to the Earth's environment. Sounds like the progressive socialist democrat agenda.

We are so screwed.

-- steve  

Related articles

Global Warming: Making Scary Temperature Charts for Public Consumption

Global Warming: Are Politicians, Institutions and Scientists Worried About Funding in Face of REAL Science Disclosures? Prepared to Perpetuate the BIG LIE or simply say they dont know what is happening to a scientific certainty?

Christopher Booker Reports On US Data Tampering

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

My Theory About USHCN Data Tampering

Inside the murky world where climate denial, social media and industry propaganda converge

USHCN Thermometer Data Shows No US Warming Since The Year 1900