According to believers in anthropogenic global warming, there is a consensus among climate scientists that the earth is in a warming trend and that the warming is man-made and catastrophic.
According Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He went on to say that, “Twenty years ago climate research became politicised in favour of one particlar hypothesis.” (Italics added) Hmmm, I’ll pick up this issue at a later date.
If we are to believe that there is a scientific consensus, we ought to understand the evidence on which it is based. The past few months have proven that much of the data upon which scientists have relied over the years has been manipulated, inaccurate, and sloppy.
It is important in scientific inquiry for others to be able to access to the data that has been used so the work can be analyzed and conclusions replicated. It seems to be a pretty common problem in climate science that those touting anthropogenic global warming theory have suppressed data, and maybe now we know why.
When the raw data is manipulated, even slightly, major trends can be falsely extrapolated from that data. If scientists refuse to release their data and the information used to adjust it, other scientists are kept from questioning their work and as a result, can make utter falsehoods appear as “consensus.”
Here is an example of how small changes in the way the data is considered can have an enormous impact on ultimate projections. According to Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter,
Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance. This because many areas of the world have shown cooling, just as many have shown warming over the past decades.
So, simply applying temperature to distorted land mass (Mercator) measurements, makes average temperature variations appear quite extreme when in fact they aren’t. Of course, just reading the IPCC report would give us no indication that this data has been inaccurately represented.
If we were unable to see the information and data used to draw the conclusion that there is much more warming than cooling, on net balance, we would not be aware that the land mass of particular warm countries had been nearly doubled, having the effect of artificially adding weight to a warming trend.
Below are some examples of recently discovered manipulations of data. In each case, the conclusions drawn from the manipulations have helped to form the basis for scientific consensus on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
Professor Nils-Axel Morner has written more than 520 peer-reviewed papers on sea level and is considered to be the world’s foremost expert on the subject.
According to Dr. Morner, “the sea is not rising. It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” He goes on to state that if there is any rise this century, it will “not be more than 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm.”
The information we’ve been given by the IPCC predicts a sea level rise of 59 cm by 2100 and Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth warns us that we could see 20 foot increases. By the way, not one of the 22 contributing authors on the IPCC’s latest reports is a sea level specialist, according to the professor.
The IPCC data showed no upward trend until 2003. The IPCC “experts” found a single tide-guage in Hong Kong harbor showing a 2.3 mm rise, at which time they adjusted the entire global sea-level projection upward because they, admittedly, “needed to show a trend.”
In November 2009, the raw data gathered by NIWA, which had served as the basis for estimates of temperature increases in New Zealand at the rate of .92°C per century, was analyzed by outsiders and it was discovered that the official data didn’t line up with the raw data. Old temperatures, as far back as 1850, had been manipulated downward and more recent temperatures had been manipulated upward.
The effect of these changes was astronomical. When the raw data was actually looked at by unbiased scientists, it showed no appreciable change in temperature (0.06°C) over the past 150 years.
This was discovered when scientists at the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition were able to obtain both data sets (raw and adjusted) from an associate of Dr. M. James Salinger. Salinger had been at NIWA and, before that, CRU; coincidence?
Over the years, requests were made for the data to no avail, and it wasn’t until this unnamed associate passed it on for scientific review that the discrepancies were found.
NIWA eventually responded by stating that modifications were made to adjust for the movement of weather stations, and named one weather station that had been moved in 1928. They refused to release the data showing how much of an adjustment was made and why (was data collected at the two sites over time in order to determine temperature differentials?), and have given no information of other station site changes.
In the IPCC report of 2007, claims were made regarding the disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035. The average Himalayan glacier is 300 meters thick and at a melt rate of 5 meters a year, much faster than anything we’re currently seeing, it would take 60 years for the average glacier, to disappear, nowhere close to the 28 years in the report.
This information was based on a speculative statement made by a scientist back in 1999. Anyone familiar with glaciers who applies a minimal level of scientific inquiry to this question would have easily found this analysis to be flawed. Even if that weren’t done, not only was this figure never published in any peer-reviewed journal, but its source was never investigated before its inclusion in the UN report.
When the claim was previously criticized, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, referred to the criticism as “voodoo science.” Funny, because it turned out that voodoo science was a whole lot more accurate than the “science” being done at the U.N.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report has conceded that he isn’t an expert on glaciers.
Misinformation is easily disseminated when not one of the scientists drawing the actual conclusions and overseeing the aggregation of information is an expert in the field.
Weather-Related Loss and Rising Temperatures
The IPCC has stated that there are increasing weather related losses tied to rising temperatures which are being driven by human activity. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the IPCC chose to use one non-peer reviewed paper to support claims that are contradicted by every scientifically rigorous, peer reviewed paper that exists.
A graph included in the IPCC report which shows these increasing weather related losses is attributed to Muir-Wood et al. 2006 and, according to Roger Pielke Jr., “That paper was not published by the IPCC deadline for inclusion, nor was it peer reviewed, nor did it include the graph shown above, nor did it strongly support the claims being made. But it was highlighted anyway.”
He goes on to explain that in 2008 that paper was included as a chapter in a book, where its conclusions completely contradict those made in the IPCC report.
Pielke himself has said,
I am shocked to see such a figure in the IPCC of all places . . . I am amazed that this figure made it past review of any sort, but especially given what the broader literature on this subject actually says. I have generally been a supporter of the IPCC, but I do have to admit that if it is this sloppy and irresponsible in an area of climate change where I have expertise, why should I have confidence in the areas where I am not an expert?
He goes on to say that the claims made by the IPCC weren’t simply in violation of their procedures, but were wrong and “based on knowledge that just doesn’t exist.”
Anyone interested in scientific, and just plain intellectual, rigor ought to read what comes out of this political body with a pretty big grain of salt . That is precisely what an ever increasing number of scientists are doing, joining the ranks of the ordinary Americans who’ve understood all along that for some, truth all too often appears to be one of the least important pursuits of this investigation.