Say, If Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Scientists Keep Cheating?

Periodically, I like to make sure we are talking about the correct thing and on the same page. Climate change is real. Global warming is real. There has been warming since the mid-1800’s. The question as posed by most Skeptics is not on whether there has been warming, it is on the causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by the action of Mankind, particularly “carbon pollution”. They can barely even admit that nature plays any part. Except where a Pause is concerned, then they say that nature is masking the symptoms. Hence, we refer to it as AGW, anthropogenic global warming, anthropogenic climate change, and ‘climate change’, among others. When they say global warming and climate change, they mean man caused. Which leads to

If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?

A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.

It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order “to capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Let’s not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.

Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider’s script. It’s spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.

Which, of course, led to ClimateGate, ClimateGate 2.0, and many other issues, including the current one being mostly embargoed by the media, as scientist John Bates has accused NOAA of failing to follow science and ruled in publishing the Karl paper, which was designed to make the climate look worse as they headed to Paris for the UN IPCC conference.

Please don’t be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up.

It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they’ll to continue to hand them money

And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can’t even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong.

I, and many others, have said it before and I’ll say it again: if the science is so sound, why the need to adjust the data, smooth the data, manipulate the data, manufacture the data? Why does the data not stand on its own? Why the need for doomy prognostications? Why are publicly funded “scientists” advocating for Big Government policies that will harm the lower and middle classes, while increasing the power of government? Why are they acting more like an advocacy group than scientists?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Say, If Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Scientists Keep Cheating?”

  1. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    I’ve got over 2″ of glow-ball warming here in Jenkintown, PA and it’s still coming down. My wife’s friend brought over her family to stay at our house. The kids love my house because I have heated floors and since we do the Asian thing there are no shoes in the house. But all the floors are warm so the kids love it. My wife’s salons are open but I convinced her to not drive down town so she’s making kim-chee pancakes and bulgogi for the troops. Another snow day.

  2. Stosh says:

    Of course you have to fudge the numbers…
    I remember back in college in Nuclear Physics lab, if we didn’t fudge the numbers…we would have proved Nobel Prize experiments bogus and the A-Bomb a hoax. A little fudging and we passed the course.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Climate change is real. Global warming is real. There has been warming since the mid-1800’s. The question as posed by most Skeptics is not on whether there has been warming

    Sorry, slippery pete, you can’t have it both ways. The supposed “cheating” was in the temperature record. So which is it? Is it warming or not? If the warming is all fake, what is your justification for saying it’s warming??

    Since you claim your so-called skepticism arises from the causation, do you have an opinion about what might be causing the warming that you both deny and support at the same time?

  4. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: John Bates has accused NOAA of failing to follow science and ruled in publishing the Karl paper

    Bates has already walked back from the original reporting.

    Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.” … “The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al — that’s the ultimate platinum test of whether a study is to be believed or not,” McNutt {editor of Science at the time the paper was published and now president of the National Academy of Sciences} said. “And this study has passed.”

  5. Zach misrepresents what the cited article says, trying to make it appear that Bates had made a claim on the “new” study.

    Bates never commented on that study at all.

    Bates’ original comments were on the data, how it was handled and how it was changed. There may not have been anything “malicious” in it (and Bates would not know) but it is clear from his original post on the issue that the data was manipulated using programs that were not tested and contrary to the data integrity procedures that were in place.

    The fact of the matter is that NOAA was not honest with the handling of the data, and when Bates confronted them, they hid that as well.

    If we are going to talk about the integrity of the issue, then why the need to go outside the policies, procedures and safeguards on the data itself?

    Occam’s Razor anyone?

  6. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: Bates had {not} made a claim on the “new” study.

    That’s right, even though the supporting studies are completely relevant.

    gitarcarver: There may not have been anything “malicious”

    Per Bates, there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.” This contradicts the original reporting, as well as the original post herein concerning “cheating”.

    gitarcarver: Bates’ original comments

    Bates: rush to time the publication of the paper

    In fact, the time from submission to publication in Science was longer than average.

    Bates: Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15.

    In fact, the data-sets are available.

    Most critically, independent researchers have verified the original findings.

  7. That’s right, even though the supporting studies are completely relevant.

    Yet you made it appear that Bates himself had made the statements on the study achieving the same result.

    Why the deception Zach?

    Nevermind. We know why.

    This contradicts the original reporting, as well as the original post herein concerning “cheating”.

    It does no such thing.

    Is it really your contention that not following the rules and pretending that you did is not “cheating?” Is that were your morals and ethics want to take you?

    Secondly, we don’t know the context of the “not malicious” statement. Furthermore, his statement seems to be contradicted by the actions of the NOAA which refused to say they had cheated and gone against their own protocols on data. It is more than likely that the AP cherry picked his comment out of context and because it fits your agenda, you would rather go with 8 words than a long detailed post Bates made.

    Bates: rush to time the publication of the paper

    That’s your characterization but in fact leaves out why Bates feels there was a rush to publication. That reason is the way the data was handled. There was no way the data presented in the paper was known to be correct because NOAA had violated its own rules – rules that Bates had developed.

    NOAA did not address the data issues because it wanted to get the paper to Paris. It has nothing to do with the length of time.

    In fact, the data-sets are available.

    In fact, what is missing is how the data sets were treated and stored.

    Your point is akin to stealing a sandwich, not telling anyone and then saying “how could this be stolen? It is right here?”

    Most critically, independent researchers have verified the original findings.

    Another lie from you. Only one paper has been published and not since this data fiasco came to light. Those papers were based on the data whose manipulation and storage was not disclosed.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  8. Blick says:

    Global warming is a computer simulation game. not science.

  9. Jeffery says:

    gitar typed:

    Zach misrepresents what the cited article says, trying to make it appear that Bates had made a claim on the “new” study.

    So it’s someone else’s fault you can’t read standard English? You’re confused but someone else is to blame? LOL. You’re a piece of work. duckspeak indeed.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Global warming is a computer simulation game. not science.

    Computer simulations do not melt arctic ice or warm the oceans. Even Teach admits that the Earth is warming.

  11. So it’s someone else’s fault you can’t read standard English? You’re confused but someone else is to blame? LOL. You’re a piece of work. duckspeak indeed.

    No, it’s someone elses fault when they fail to use a standard notation for quoting another source. It is someone elses fault when they try to deceive others.

    As usual, your complaint isn’t the deception that a person of your ilk tried to pull off. Your complaint is that they were caught.

  12. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    You were once beaten like a rented mule and once again try to slip and slide out of it. “Look over here at this shiny thing!”

    Nice try, slick. There was no deception to anyone who can read.

    You continually use this tactic to defect from your own lack of morals and logic. Sad.

  13. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: Yet you made it appear that Bates himself had made the statements on the study achieving the same result.

    Um, no. We clearly attributed the comment to “McNutt {editor of Science at the time the paper was published and now president of the National Academy of Sciences}”

    gitarcarver: Is it really your contention that not following the rules and pretending that you did is not “cheating?”

    What rule was that?

    gitarcarver: That’s your characterization

    The fact is that the paper took longer than average from submission to publication.

    gitarcarver: In fact, what is missing is how the data sets were treated and stored.

    The data-sets are publicly available.

    gitarcarver: No, it’s someone elses fault when they fail to use a standard notation for quoting another source.

    We used the standard “He said”-“She said”.

  14. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: Only one paper has been published and not since this data fiasco came to light.

    That’s funny considering Bates’s comments were just a few days ago. Median time form submission to publication in Science is 109 days. That doesn’t include the time to actually do the research.

    In any case, independent researchers have verified the findings, so that’s what matters to scientists.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9730 access attempts in the last 7 days.