You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
The Dog Ate Global Warming
2009-09-25
By Patrick Michaels - a man who knows what he's talking about.
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
You misspelled "covered up," Pat.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer.
There's a third choice: I'll take "lying through their teeth to protect their phoney-baloney jobs" for $1000, Alex.
Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
How is this different from normal, exactly?

More at the link. Not too long; worth reading the whole thing.
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#17  I read somewhere that the surface temp sensors were seriously compromised because they placed a lot of the sensors next to black asphalt parking lots, air conditioner (outlets), etc...

In short the data is biased from the start.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-09-25 19:16  

#16  So we're to believe that all of the climate data gathered from around the world was collected in a single place, the original raw data was deleted, no copies of the data were made for other researchers, no backups were made. And then the single copy in the entire world was lost. Yeah, right - I call BULLSHIT!
Posted by: DMFD   2009-09-25 19:12  

#15  After WWII...

Pretty much. The nexus is the universities. Universities before WWII were still anchored in the traditions of Western Civilization. After WWII and the windfall of the GI Bill, they evolved into paper mills, ever expanding to become an end of themselves. They adopted the GM model of corporate management with more divisions and vice-presidents while generating large numbers of graduates that required more and more government subsidies to employ their 'talents' because there was no real market for them. Now they have to make themselves 'indispensable' to sustain their life styles. What they've done to public education is what most other sectors are going to devolve to if we keep the funding troughs open, just as you see this effect in the 'sciences'.
Posted by: Procopius2k    2009-09-25 16:11  

#14  Anyone who thinks Wikipedia is a good source for hard science is seriously misguided.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-09-25 16:06  

#13  "#2 How is this different from normal, exactly?

Normal, in science, is openness."

Apparently I wasn't clear, Steve. I meant how is this different from their lying, CYA "normal."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-09-25 14:35  

#12  Can we track exactly when science became a government racket, requiring that participants tow the Party line?

After WWII they started paying scientists real salaries---turning what formerly was a vocation into a profession. Given a profession where success is based on consensus of opinion domination by people who's major (and, eventually, only) talent is self marketing is inevitable.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-09-25 13:48  

#11  TW, if you really want science, not denier cherrypicking, you can start with this discussion of surface temp records

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Uncertainties_in_the_temperature_record
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-25 12:06  

#10  there has been much work on climate data since the 1980s. The article only hints that the data extract used in the 1980s study has been lost. Its not really relevant. Of course its difficult to tell, since the NR article does not link to any sources, especially not to discussions of the situation its not in sympathy with.

Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-25 12:04  

#9  There are 2 sets of data, satellite and ground station. The satellite data has not been lost, but the GW alarmists don't like it because it doesn't show any material warming.
Posted by: Iblis   2009-09-25 10:58  

#8  I did the computer work for a paper my mother wrote, and so got junior author status to start off my curriculum vitae, back when I was but a college student, a statistical analysis of a lot of data she'd collected over the years. The final appendix to the 2-page paper was about 20 pages of data presented in tables, so that the reader could do his own analysis. This is normal. Mr. Jones refusal to share the data is, to be blunt, unscientific. Allowing the data to be destroyed is a nightmare -- lab notebooks are archived even more carefully than the Jews keep their retired Torah scrolls. The scientific community could legitimately insist on re-doing the entire thing, all however many years of it, before allowing any conclusions drawn from the lost data to stand.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-09-25 10:21  

#7  Compare Global Warming "science" with what happened with Cold Fusion.

As soon as the claims were made and explained there was a rush to reproduce / verify. Didn't work. Cold Fusion died a quick death.
Posted by: AlanC   2009-09-25 09:43  

#6  Can we track exactly when science became a government racket, requiring that participants tow the Party line?
Posted by: eLarson   2009-09-25 07:41  

#5  I wasn't referring to whether CO2, greenhouse gases, anthropogenic effects have caused the warming. I was referring to whether warming on a global basis has occurred at all.

The satellite data for the southern hemisphere doesn't show any warming at all for 30 years, all the data we have.
Posted by: phil_b   2009-09-25 04:08  

#4  It's remarkable how almost none of the evidence for global warming stands up to scrutiny.

Yet the weaker the evidence the more fervent the belief.

A post-modern apocalyptic religion.
Posted by: phil_b   2009-09-25 03:54  

#3  Attempts to hide the data OR the calculations suggest someone is playing an elaborate game of Three Card Monte and is probably trying to sell you something you shouldn't ought to buy.
Posted by SteveS

Birther drivel. Come on now, get with the program.
Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland   2009-09-25 01:16  

#2  How is this different from normal, exactly?

Normal, in science, is openness. In order for science to work, you need to be able to reproduce someone's results. As Mr. Gaziorowski taught us in 10th grade Chemistry, when you write a paper you show your work. Along with your conclusion, you show your data, you show your calculations. You even try to think up everything that could have gone wrong.

Attempts to hide the data OR the calculations suggest someone is playing an elaborate game of Three Card Monte and is probably trying to sell you something you shouldn't ought to buy.
Posted by: SteveS   2009-09-25 01:14  

#1  REDDIT > THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM, not seen since the 17th century.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-25 00:30  

00:00