In my previous post ‘The Noble Sword’ I argued that Social Networking is a means to organize ourselves to ensure that we are not opinion-manipulated by the global media, global advertizing budgets, politicians and scientists. It does work! Read this popular post for example: The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero.
It follows up on the Climategate scandal that was originally started by a report of the Washington Post on hacked climate research material at the University of East Anglia that suggested that scientists were not at all choosy in their methods to deal with opponents and in presenting data in support of their theories favorably. The response to Climategate by the climate change pundits was that maybe these scientists overdid it but that does not invalidate the data that supposedly proof global warming theory.
Well, that could be true … but is it???
I have opposed global warming theory ever since mostly because of our lack of understanding. Once however clueless, populist politicians such as Al Gore step into the ring, I can be counted out. Let me say again that I am not promoting to continue mindless pollution. Let’s conserve energy! I propose however to focus on solving overfishing and the destruction of the rainforests, rather than CO2 footprints. Greenhouse Theory is nothing else than a marketing campaign for a CO2 taxation scheme and helps to cover up how inept politicians really are.
Willis Eschenbach went to the trouble to take a serious look at the actual historical temperature data and highlights some interesting relationships. In essence he explains that three global datasets (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are used to proof global warming, which are however all based on the same GHCN dataset. That means that there are not three independent temperature sources as we are led to believe.
Eschenbach shows that the GHCN data set has been adjusted for various influences (i.e. changes to weather stations) supposedly to make it a homogeneous data set. Comparing the underlying GHCN data to the adjusted ones shows that they are NEVER adjusted downwards, which in all statistical sense should happen to half the data. They are always adjusted UPWARDS – without justification or explanation – leading to the differences in the chart below.
I am not saying that Willis Eschenbach is right and obviously he is just sharing an opinion, which is however as valid as scientific opinions. His observations are most certainly discounted by scientists as not being done with ‘scientific method’.
That could be true … because he did not manipulate the data as some scientists do …