We’ve been told that the science is settled, that climatologists everywhere agree: our planet is warming and it is due to the actions of humanity. To prevent catastrophe, governments, companies and individuals have to drastically cut their “carbon footprints,” the economic ramifications be damned. Despite the potential worldwide Depression that could result, if action isn’t taken today, the world will never be the same.
What many conservatives have learned, however, is that the science is far from “settled.” In the Telegraph, Christopher Booker explains,
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
What is the motivation from scientists to fudge data? Funding for climatology research is a payday for scientists, as evidenced by a graph created by Science and Public Policy Institute:
The Institute asks,
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation? Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?
Comment below: Do you think global warming data is fudged?