4 thoughts on “NOAA/NASA use only land-based temps to claim 2015 hottest year ever”
Climatologists seem to rely heavily on their own and their colleagues confabulations.
Should climatology as it exists today be even considered a hard, natural science? Does climatology more resemble astronomy and chemistry or does climatology more resemble astrology and alchemy? Or does climatology more resemble political science and/or psychology?
It seems to me that it’s a bit strange to call a discipline ‘a science’ when the practitioners–seemingly on an incidental basis –adjust data that doesn’t fit their hypothesis and ignore the ‘unfit’ data that they can’t adjust in a way that it will fit the picture.
Anything that relies on cherry picked data, ignores conflicting data, relies on rigged computer models and threatens anyone or anything that questions it, is not science!
The important thing is that with a satellite temperatures are all measured exactly the same way, with exactly the same instrument. As an Analytical Chemist I know that this kind of replicability is essential to reliable measurements.
If the temps are all off a fixed amount, then using the deviation from average (the ‘temperature anomaly’) eliminates that issue completely. If the temps are randomly off, the use of the average SST removes that as well, so that the only issue remaining would be the (uniform!) uncertainty. Recall that climatologists have always been loath to report uncertainties in raw measurements, or even averages.
Instead they continue to rely entirely on land-based temperatures, with well-documented systematic and non-systematic biases (thanks to Anthony Watts and assistants); temperatures that they feel compelled to ‘adjust’ without explanation, documentation, justification, or disclosure.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Climatologists seem to rely heavily on their own and their colleagues confabulations.
Should climatology as it exists today be even considered a hard, natural science? Does climatology more resemble astronomy and chemistry or does climatology more resemble astrology and alchemy? Or does climatology more resemble political science and/or psychology?
It seems to me that it’s a bit strange to call a discipline ‘a science’ when the practitioners–seemingly on an incidental basis –adjust data that doesn’t fit their hypothesis and ignore the ‘unfit’ data that they can’t adjust in a way that it will fit the picture.
Anything that relies on cherry picked data, ignores conflicting data, relies on rigged computer models and threatens anyone or anything that questions it, is not science!
The important thing is that with a satellite temperatures are all measured exactly the same way, with exactly the same instrument. As an Analytical Chemist I know that this kind of replicability is essential to reliable measurements.
If the temps are all off a fixed amount, then using the deviation from average (the ‘temperature anomaly’) eliminates that issue completely. If the temps are randomly off, the use of the average SST removes that as well, so that the only issue remaining would be the (uniform!) uncertainty. Recall that climatologists have always been loath to report uncertainties in raw measurements, or even averages.
Instead they continue to rely entirely on land-based temperatures, with well-documented systematic and non-systematic biases (thanks to Anthony Watts and assistants); temperatures that they feel compelled to ‘adjust’ without explanation, documentation, justification, or disclosure.