August 24, 2014

What if it's all lies and hot air?

Remember decades ago, when the demise of humans was imminent, due to overpopulation and not enough food?  Everyone believed it.  Well regarded scientists believed it.  The science itself had no complexity, requiring only primary school maths (do some simple sums, simple extrapolation and simple prediction).

At least the last end-times prediction was based on real data, not computer modelling with only partial grounding in real world data and real world dynamics.

Does it matter if humans whip themselves daily for causing the warming of the planet, even if it turns out to be a wasted mass self-flagellation?  Well yes, of course it.  Decades of wasted debate, trillions of dollars, wasted economic, political and social capital.  That's why it matters:  the opportunity cost is devastating to current and future generations.
It goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last.

“In (George Orwell’s) Nineteen Eighty-Four Winston Smith knows that, ‘He who controls the present controls the past’. Certainly the bureau appears intent on improving the historical temperature record by changing it,” Marohasy says.

“Repetition is a propaganda technique,’’ she wrote back to Birmingham. “The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are ­others.

“The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

Marohasy has analysed the physical temperature records from more than 30 stations included in the BoM set that determines the official national temperature record.

And she remains disturbed by a pattern whereby homogenisation exaggerates, or even produces, a record of steady warming against a steady or cooling trend in the raw data.

Marohasy says the “corruption” of the data was of no practical consequence to climate scientists at BoM because they do not use historical data for forecasting either rainfall or temperature — they use simulation models that attempt to recreate the climate based on assumed physical ­processes.

But she says the remodelling is “of considerable political value to them, because the remodelled data better accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming’’.

Marohasy says the unhomogenised/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-­year period from January 1913 through to December last year shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35C per 100 years.

After homogenisation there is a warming trend of 1.73C per 100 years. Marohasy says this warming trend essentially was achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-Sat temperature is 1.8C.

BoM is adamant the purpose of homogenisation is to remove non-­climatic disconuities. But Marohasy says because there have been no site changes or equipment changes at Rutherglen, but very large adjustments made to the data, it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the bureau has changed the record for Rutherglen because it is very different to the record for the neighbouring stations.
So many sheep, so few skeptics. 

Bureau of meteorology altering climate figures

Heat is  on over weather bureau homogenising temperature records 

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:34 PM

    Baaaah, baaaah.

    "..truth is rightly named the daughter of time, not of authority." Frankie Bacon (1561 - 1626)

    It would appear that truth, at this point in time, has been captured by authority, but time will tell.

    In 1984 it was announced that HIV was the "probable" cause of aids and "we" now have a blood test for HIV that was 100% accurate. The next day the press dropped "probable".

    Authority told us that a person who tested positive for HIV was going to die, no doubt about it, most likely within 2 years. A positive HIV test meant the Grim Reaper had you in his firm embrace. A death sentence. Remember the TV commercials etc?

    It wasn't reported that the paper (written by Robert Gallo) claiming HIV caused AIDS related diseases had not even been peer reviewed. Robert Gallo also patented his HIV blood testing kits the same day of the announcement.

    It was not long after testing was introduced that HIV drugs were also introduced - DNA chain terminators (chemotherapy) - that if taken continuously destroys the immune system - then you're cactus.

    People who were tested positive were encouraged to take these drugs (continuously), even if they felt healthy, not to save their lives (it was inevitable they would die), but so they could live a bit longer. Most people who tested positive to HIV, who took the medication (AZT and similar) were cactus with a year or two.

    To ensure a growing demand for the drugs, the medical powers that be have increased the number of AIDS related diseases from 2 in 1981 to about 28 or 30 (not sure) at present.

    As it turns out the daughter of time has made authority a little bit uncomfortable - the infallible HIV test (a non specific test that gives a specific result) can now throw out false positives owing to about 70 different factors as it turns out to date - like pregnancy.

    As it turns out people are now living quiet happily with HIV, and not taking medication (which has been modified to some degree, and now, not given continuously), and they are not living in the fear - fear that was initially driven by authority, in the interests of authority and those who had much to gain (follow the money).

    To date I have never been able to find any scientific proof that demonstrates HIV causes AIDS related diseases - at best there is a mountain of (so called) scientific papers/surveys that produce correlative relationships - but correlation does not prove causation. Governments will only fund research into HIV/AIDS so long as that research accepts that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

    And now we are to believe that the authority of our climate scientists is as reliable as a HIV test once was, we are to believe their science and models are that of unbiased experts , and that we are cactus if we don't don't believe.

    Time to chew on some grass.
























    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:35 PM

    sorry forgot the:

    j

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your HIV/AIDS example is fascinating, not one I've come across.

    I see that scientists this week are saying that 'global warming' is now established with 99.99999 per cent certainty to be caused by humans. Of course, the problem I have with this is that to make such a claim one first, surely, has to establish that global warming is occurring in the manner and at the rate claimed. On this continent at least, it would seem that there is no evidence. Unless you count cities being hotter because of all the buildings and concrete?

    ReplyDelete