Jim's Blog

Hadcrut temperatures are fraudulent, for the Climategate files reveals that no one knows how they were constructed.

The Air vent attempts an honest reconstruction:

Of course, this reconstruction can only be as good as the data it rests on, which we now know from the Climategate documents directory to be poor.  I argue we should throw out all dubious data – which likely means we should rely on proxy indications of temperature for the early part of the century.

When science becomes a priesthood, it is no longer science.

Reference to authority is unscientific, indeed antiscientific, a rejection of the principles of
science.  One must appeal to evidence, not authority.  What authority says is not scientific evidence.

Independent replication is evidence.

If people all over the world have  made observations for the last 100 years about  temperature, I can’t replicate them; but other people at the time could replicate them.

The date at which Lake Winnipesaukee ice goes out, is the date at which people can go to their properties, and do go to their properties.  If the ice out date was wrong, they would notice and be mighty pissed.  I selected Lake Winnipesaukee, because that is the lake  whose ice outs receive the most attention unrelated to  estimating climate. Of all older climate data, Lake Winnipesaukee ice outs are the best replicated, thus, the most scientific.

And ice out dates on Lake Winnipesaukee indicate no twentieth century warming That I provide the data and method of calculation, and that this data is the most widely replicated data available means that this blog post is far more scientific than anything that could ever be permitted to appear in the journals “Nature” or “Science”.

This is the opposite of the Giss-Hadley-CRU approach, which uses vast piles of data whose validity no one can possibly know, and which there is every reason to doubt, and then capriciously excludes some of that data, includes other of that data, and whimsically adjusts what is included for reasons that are not only not revealed, but which the Climategate files revealed that Hadley-CRU themselves do not record, which large adjustments, even if justified rather than fraudulent, are an admission of the complete worthlessness of the data for the purpose.  No one can possibly know, not even Hadley-CRU, whether their adjustments are justified or fraudulent, not that it would matter since if the large adjustments are justified, the data is worthless for the purpose of estimating past climate.

If you have to estimate the veracity of the reports based on the authority of what you know about those making the reports, that is not science, but religion.  Those with the greatest authority are always the most religious, thus this approach guarantees acceptance of the most holy doctrine of the consensus of the most holy and eminent synod – which approach is anthropogenic global warming in a nutshell.

“The consensus” is not science.

Science is common sense, observation, truthfulness, and impartiality, with social mechanisms to enforce truthfulness and impartiality.  If science becomes a priesthood, if you hear the words “consensus” and “peer reviewed publication”, the mechanisms that enforce truthfulness and impartiality have failed.  “Peer reviewed”is only an indication of some connection to reality when people do not rely on it as evidence of connection to reality.