This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.
I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.
It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.
It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here
). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true.
Since the end (saving the planet) justifies any means, they had no alternative but fraud.
It consists of a large number of fraudulent devices.
Article continues below this advert:
*Doublespeak and Spin.
This is the use of ambiguous and emotive language to conceal the absence of content. See my recent update of “Doublespeak” here
* Deliberately fraudulent scientific papers
I have listed some of these in my “Global Scam” paper here
The “hockey stick”, the downplaying of solar and ocean events, Himalayan glaciers, Hide the Decline, are others.
*Suppression of evidence
Original temperature observations are suppressed or lost, Undesired gas concentration measurements are suppressed as “noise” (i.e. unwelcome data") All evidence of variability has to be eliminated.
The apparent recommendations of the IPCC are the “Carefully considered opinions” of “Experts”. all of them being indoctrinated supporters, programmed to provide the guesses required for the demands of the warmers. The procedure is described by the IPCC (see my “Spin” paper here
*Abandonment of fundamental statistical principles
All the opinions of the “experts “ have no statistical significance according to basic requirements of mathematical statistics. Samples are never representative. Averages are never validly derived. Uncertainties are usually absent or are themselves “expert” guesses. Temperature “anomalies” are treated as if they were constants and subjected to “homogenization’ and various pseudo statistical treatments like the ‘First Difference Method” and “Bayesian statistics” with the sole object of enhancing any “trend”. Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented a whole army of similar fraudulent “correction”: techniques, all designed to correct upwards here
*Distortion of climate news events
All climate events are distorted to fit a “climate change” model through control of all news media. In some ways this is their most effective technique as most of us have been so overwhelmed with this constant and unrelenting propaganda that we end up beginning to think that maybe there might be something in it after all; and perhaps a little bit of the “precautionary principle” might be acceptable.
*Attacks on Opponents
“Deniers” are prevented from publication in learned Journals controlled by the warmists with control of the peer review process. We are lackeys of Big Oil, without a career, only retired people can survive
*All honourable men (and a few women)
How could so many respectable prestigious and decorated people be parties to such a comprehensive deception. We know so many of them. They are Nobel prizewinners, Australians and Wellingtonians of the year, we cannot insult them with such a thing as truth, can we?
“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact” Charles Darwin.