If the Data Doesn’t Match Theory, Change The Data
April 25, 2017
Tony Heller has some worrying news of the latest climate fraud, this time from the DMI.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/04/if-the-data-doesnt-match-theory-change-the-data/
DMI have now apparently found evidence that Greenland has not been putting on quite as much ice as their original figures showed.
Their data so far this year has been a huge embarrassment to mythical claims of Greenland meltdown, as it has showed the Greenland ice cap growing at record rates.
Following a succession of similar stories of temperature tampering, extreme weather lies and changing historical Arctic sea ice data, the reputation of climate science has now hit a new low.
It is now obvious we can no longer rely on anything we are told.
10 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Not one projection/prediction attributed to AGW has come to fruition. Not one. How much longer can they keep up the charade before everyone realizes the truth?
Not only have they today dropped the 2015/6 data series, see the comment by John Niclasen:
“In the new version, today value is around 640 Gt, where yesterdays version is 600 Gt.”
“It is now obvious we can no longer rely on anything we are told.”
Yes Indeed…We were told at the end of 1995 that the global temperature was a record 58.72*F…at two decimal places!
Now? We are warned? that 2016 was THE record… at 58.69°F…cooler by 0.03°F?
And…NASA/GISS’s James Hansen’s 1951-1980 “benchmark”? ~59.0°F.
It is now common to say… “gimme a break”. Where are these “reliable” data?
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Long gone is the meticulous recording of observation and experiment. Today the computer has released science from onerous straitjacket of disinterested data recording and thoughtful logical reasoning and analysis.
Now by the simple act of using sophisticated computer programs that can run many iteration of statistical estimate simulations, which by adjusting the merger data with many permutations of averaging, homogenization, and precalculated offset adjustments, can render a model virtualization that is better than reality and fits the theory perfectly.
The hyper-real graphical output is also more in tune with today’s taste and expectations of the art (and YouTube presentation).
We are currently leaving the long lived global scientific optimum and entering the computerized theoretic curve fitting model era.
Take historical manipulation is as per Orwellian 1984, use a computer called Hal, so that none of the so-called scientists are ever wrong. Then add the Goebbels big-lie re-telling proves anything.
Give the output to the BBC and the result is proven climate change theory.
Now there’s a formula that IS correct.
Have they actually changed the 2016-17 data ? It doesn’t look like it to me. (Please if someone has a nice widget that can overlay internet graphics, re-digitize them and re-plot them on a common axis, do please share it …) What has changed is the baseline reference (now 1981-2010) with wider scatterbands, so that conveniently the 2016-7 series is no longer “blowing away all records” (apologies to our host). The really odd thing is that the 2011-12 series really has changed from ending the year at “break-even” (zero net accumulation) on April 24 to a smidgin of a net accumulation at 50 Gt.
Looks like trying to keep both sides happy – change the baseline to stop 2017 being a record, and adjust the 2011-2 series to show a net accumulation in that notably “low-ice” year. Greenland wasn’t starting a net melt after all, even in 2012.
Before this I was ready to award prizes to the DMI for clear simple and open data reporting. I do hope they can explain themselves.
Why are we surprised? There is a huge amount of cash at stake and lots of prestige. Who will be interested in Gore and what he says when this all ends? They have been chipping away at the 1930s to make them cooler and have even had to do the same for 1998 as if it is supposed to be warming how come the peak of that El Nino slightly beats last year’s? With all the cold and snow around they are going to have trouble to make 2017 the ‘warmest year evah’.
Why go to any trouble to ‘fix’ ice-related data? It’s all going to vanish anyway or so they keep predicting.