Tag Archives: climate science

Transparency and independent verification necessary to restore confidence in climate science

“Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim in 2005. Since then, researchers have confirmed his skepticism by trying—and often failing—to reproduce many influential journal articles. Slowly, scientists are internalizing the lessons of this irreproducibility crisis. But what about government, which has been making policy for generations without confirming that the science behind it is valid?” click here

A singular focus on trying to limit “global warming” ignores critical factors essential for community sustainability; Such a narrow focus is simply self-defeating.

“While Transactions is a leading scientific journal, these special issue articles are anything but scientific. There are no experiments or tests, or even carefully constructed real world observations. It is all just speculation and computer modeling. This is what alarmist so-called science looks like. It is all about the UN Paris Agreement, not science.” click here

Climate policies must be based on science-based reality or they will fail

Regardless of politics or religion, climate policies and decisions that are based on beliefs that do not correspond to reality – the way the world really is – will ultimately fail. As knowledge of the underlying science advances climate policies must also advance. Being stuck in a dogmatic “science is settled” attitude is counterproductive.  Yes, scientists have differences of judgement and opinion but this is normal. It’s why meaningful discussion, transparency (including making data available), disclosing underlying assumptions, and mutual respect is so important. Avoidance and activism (e.g. here) only serves to fuel ill-will and hostility rather than constructive dialog.

Google funding to determine what is science “misinformation”?

This is unfortunate. Committees of the Academies typically work behind closed doors and are not transparent. Regardless of the funding source this authoritarian effort (click here) to define scientific misinformation will likely have a bad ending. Concerns have already been raised about abuse of power (e.g. here) as a result of such effort.

As an observer of this I have to ask, who is the motivation coming from for this effort to turn NAS, NAE, and NAM into an information filtering agency.

The best way to counter misinformation is to make data publicly available so that analysis of such data and the claims being made can be confirmed or disputed by others. Two equally qualified scientists can look at exactly the same information and draw different or even opposite interpretations. What is misinformation to one scientist may a valid argument to another. 

Just because an interpretation or statement may not be generally accepted does not mean it is “misinformation.” All new ideas in science begin as “misinformation” to those scientists entrenched in the “status quo”.

It seems to me that the abuse of science mostly occurs in the media and news articles that promote unsupported or exaggerated claims.

NOAA data fabrication is real; NOAA manipulation of science is settled, unequivocal.

“There are many problems with what NOAA is doing. The first is that they are turning an 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend, which has massive implications for both climate scientists, journalists, voters and policy makers who depend on the accuracy of their work. “ click here

Evidence of water deep within the earth’s crust

“A UNLV scientist has discovered the first direct evidence that fluid water pockets may exist as far as 500 miles deep into the Earth’s mantle.” click here

Global surface temperature measurements are unreliable

It is well-known that the surface temperature measurement networks have some serious problems (e.g. look here). So much so that knowledge of the historical global temperatures is inadequate to draw definitive conclusions regarding global temperature trends. The use of the term “uncertainty” here suggests that those who believe in global warming will continue to hold that belief regardless of the poor quality of the underlying data, which actually represents a lack of knowledge. They seem to have confounded the concept of uncertainty with the reality of not having knowledge.

P. W. Thorne, H. J. Diamond, B. Goodison, S. Harrigan, Z. Hausfather, N. B. Ingleby, P. D. Jones, J. H. Lawrimore, D. H. Lister, A. Merlone, T. Oakley, M. Palecki, T. C. Peterson, M. de Podesta, C. Tassone, V. Venema, K. M. Willett. Towards a global land surface climate fiducial reference measurements network.
Int. J. Climatol. 2018;1-15. DOI: 10.1002/joc.5458

There is overwhelming evidence that the climate system has warmed since the instigation of instrumental meteorological observations. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the evidence for warming was unequivocal. However, owing to imperfect measurements and ubiquitous changes in measurement networks and techniques, there remain uncertainties in many of the details of these historical changes. These uncertainties do not call into question the trend or overall magnitude of the changes in the global climate system. Rather, they act to make the picture less clear than it could be, particularly at the local scale where many decisions regarding adaptation choices will be required, both now and in the future. A set of high-quality long-term fiducial reference measurements of essential climate variables will enable future generations to make rigorous assessments of future climate change and variability, providing society with the best possible information to support future decisions. Here we propose that by implementing and maintaining a suitably stable and metrologically well-characterized global land surface climate fiducial reference measurements network, the present-day scientific community can bequeath to future generations a better set of observations. This will aid future adaptation decisions and help us to monitor and quantify the effectiveness of internationally agreed mitigation steps. This article provides the background, rationale, metrological principles, and practical considerations regarding what would be involved in such a network, and outlines the benefits which may accrue. The challenge, of course, is how to convert such a vision to a long-term sustainable capability providing the necessary well-characterized measurement series to the benefit of global science and future generations.