This quote from ETH Zurich is actually from another just published post, but it is so grating, so anti-science, that it deserves its very own thread to highlight it.
Here it is:
If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.
Gosh.
This is like saying:
If we take all our economic projections for performance as suggested by our financial models, and correct it downwards, and at the same time, if we take all of our revenues and expenditures that are in the red, and adjust them upwards, out company will be on track and our investors will be satisfied.
Except, people go to jail for that sort of thing.
This is the most perverted use of the word “corrected” I have EVER seen. Just stunning…
Give them enough rope.
Sure seems to apply to this deviant branch of social studies.
I would blame full scale panic.
I am speechless.
Also, if the models must be corrected downwards then wouldn’t the underlying concept of the models – CO2 warming – need to also be corrected downwards?
Wouldn’t that make the CO2 effect even less of a concern?
A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?
If my bank would correct my outstanding loan amount downwards, and correct my savings account balance upwards, I’ll be in great shape.
So basically, if we make sh*t up to match what we think is the “right answer”, then we can finally demonstrate that our answer is right!
Or, to rephrase again,
Clearly the models are wrong, so we have to adjust those, but REALITY is ALSO WRONG, so we have to adjust reality as well, and then our results will look AWESOME!
If that pitch had been 1 foot higher and 8 inches to the right, it would have been a strike, so “YERRR OUT!”.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so dangerous, so insanely – in an Orwellian sense – anti science and anti human.
They have already been “correcting” the measured data… recent data gets corrected upwards by a bunch, and older data gets corrected downwards by a bunch, and they still haven’t been able to make reality match their models!
I hope that the next LIA comes during the lifetime of most of these morons… living through it myself would almost be worth it to see what happens to these “scholars”.
“Except, people go to jail for that sort of thing.”
Not if they are Chairing a Central Bank they don’t.
Guess I have to join in, too.
If I correct my height upwards, and my weight downwards, enough, well, blow me down, a BMI to content the medics.
So that’s all right then.
Auto
Those that can not believe that they have made mistakes, are destined to repeat them. This is an example. They have been “correcting” global average temperatures upward while “adjusting” CO2 sensitivity downward.
JohnB says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am
A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?
—
Yes it is unreasonable and totally wrong. It is not a “correction” since that would require that you actually know the “correct” value of the parameter in question. “Adjustment” would be a better term for this type of ad hoc “science”…
Hence:
2 + 2 = 5
(For small values of 5 and large values of 2.)
I played a game of half court basketball with a buddy yesterday. At the end of the game, I adjusted his score downwards and my score upwards and I won!
JohnB says:
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?
—
Yes, it is unreasonable. If you have a lack of arctic stations, you don’t assume what the temperature would have been. For all you know, actual arctic temperatures are colder than assumed.
Isn’t moving the measured data upwards an implicit “hide the decline” moment?
More evidence that you can’t fix stupid.
Goose meet gander department: If the model data is corrected upwards and the measurement data is corrected downwards then the model and actual observations will be even further apart than they are and thus put this sorry hoax out of its misery even faster!
Seemed to sum it up
How many Client Scientists does it take to change a light bulb? 6.
1 to input model parameters and values to determine the wattage needed for the desired brightness of the room.
1 to obtain and screw in the bulb.
1 to measure the actual brightness obtained.
1 to adjust the model parameters upward to more closely match actual brightness.
1 to provide sunglasses to adjust apparent brightness downward to more closely match modeled brightness.
1 to declare the project a glowing success.
Quote of the week ?
More like “Quote of the Year” and possibly “Quote of the Decade” !
It illustrates the whole schemozzle beautifully.
JohnB says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am
Very. To start with you need to include an “upward correction” for the predominance of El Ni&ntides;os in the years before the PDO flipped negative.
Either of those “correction” provides tacit support to the inconvenient truth that “natural variability” is as big a factor as CO2, but the warmista will try to sweep that under the rug. Actually, those “corrections” are how the warmista try to sweep that under the rug and discourage attempts to identify, describe, and quantify that natural variability.