Can there be a valid discussion about the climate if warmist scientists are cooking the books?
The failure of climate computer models to accurately project recent temperatures is a major embarrassment for warming campaigners. The models nearly universally call for more warming than has actually occurred. This has left the warming crowd scrambling to explain the missing warming. The folks who publish the Hockey Schtick blog are now up to 38 excuses for the missing warming. Marc Morano has details at Climate Depot.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts has been documenting accusations of researchers placing their thumbs on the scale to create warming for years.
Now comes reports that the Australian Met Office has been adjusting temperature data to cool the past and create a warming trend that does not appear in the raw data.
The escalating row goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last. Marohasy’s research has put her in dispute with BoM over a paper she published with John Abbot at Central Queensland University in the journal Atmospheric Research concerning the best data to use for rainfall forecasting. BoM challenged the findings of the Marohasy-Abbot paper, but the international journal rejected the BoM rebuttal, which had been prepared by some of the bureau’s top scientists. This has led to an escalating dispute over the way in which Australia’s historical temperature records are “improved” through homogenisation, which is proving more difficult to resolve. (The Australian, h/t Benny Peiser).
Nothing is more fundamental to the scientific method than the rule that we must adjust our hypotheses to fit the data. Adjusting the data to fit the hypothesis is an academic/scientific crime no matter how plush the funding.
Accusations of global warming data manipulation demand full and unbiased investigations.
Political correctness has no place in science. Only scientifically correct will do.