The ‘Karlization’ of Earth’s Temperature

trafamadore January 21, 2016 at 4:50 pm
“Wow. Scientists are big crooks. Good one.
The sad thing is that you might actually believe it.”
There are things in my Nations past that I am ashamed of.
And some of them are that we the people DIDN’T dis-believe it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
michael

Not all scientists, just those who prostrate themselves for govt handouts.

This is a stupid statement all by itself. First of all, it equates science the discipline with scientists as individuals. Different people are motivated by different pressures, and different communities of scientists are likewise motivated. Strawmen statements like ‘scientists are big crooks’ sets up an artificial – and kind of stuck-up – position for you to soapbox from. Being a ‘scientist’ does not make you anything other than the person you already were – it just means you’ve read a lot. We live in a world where priests – theoretically the bastion of morality – have been known to molest children, and yet I am apparently supposed to simply blindly trust the honesty of an entire class of people who have, as a philosophy, abandoned morality in favor of ethics.
And herein is a presumption that needs addressing. The idea that ‘scientists’, simply by being scientists, are somehow more objective because science the discipline is, would be like saying a Catholic priest is moral because Catholicism dictates morality.
Now, I’m not trying to pick on scientists (OR priests) in any general way, but this is a fundamental fact about anyone that pursues science in any form: If you want to study something for a living, you have to get someone to pay you for it. Most often, researchers take their degrees into the private sector and THAT is where the most innovative research is done today. There is, however, the community that essentially stays in college – forming Academia.
These people essentially stay in school their entire lives – and likewise need someone to pay them for it – which means that your work has to be valuable to SOMEBODY. In a system where educators are often forced to scramble for funding like crack whores, you can make an extremely strong case that the interests of those funding education are as influential on an ‘academic’ researcher as it is to a professional working in industry. Or government scientists, I might add.
I would also remind people who characterize a university environment as ‘liberal’ or ‘open-minded’ – what was college really like? Not open-minded, at best it is counter-culture’ – rigidly so – extremely clique-oriented, with people divided up into little buildings and given Greek letters that define their personality type. It’s a surreal, abstract (and often chemically-enhanced), environment of pure theory – not tested by conditions in the real world. A computer model, for example, will ALWAYS run according to program – because it exists in its own reality, not the real world. (Dan Ackroyd to Bill Murray in ‘Ghostbusters’: “You’ve never been out of college. I’ve worked in the private sector. THEY expect results.”
SO, THAT’s the environment of the Academic.
Now throw in the cash cow of Green i.e. Global Warming funding… which is… billions. Those who believe skeptic science is heavily funded are sadly mistaken. In fact, the money is actually all going the other way. The Oil and Power companies (including GE and BP notably) are among the largest investors in green technology and stand to benefit the most… and would not be happy if their investments turned out to be a complete donut (Robocop: I had guaranteed military sale with Ed 209 – spare parts for twenty five years – WHO CARES IF IT WORKED OR NOT?).
The money interests invested in Global Warming are huge, encompassing nearly the entire U.S. Government (both parties), the entirety of the media, both news and entertainment, almost all the conservationist groups, and most world government. A lot of people are DEEP in.
One of the best quotes of the Climategate e-mails: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”
And it’s hard to fault individual scientists. You have to go where jobs are. I’ve seen this in a hundred different studies – all from people who want nothing more out of life than to study the things they love – do what you love and you never work a day in your life, right? So, if you want to study mosquitoes, or fruit bats (real cases), you get funding by attaching it to Global Warming – doing a study about bats dying in a heat wave. It’s the same everywhere – even things as seemingly removed as paleontology researchers are throwing their hats into the cash pool – with Cretaceous C02 studies – hell – remember how John Hammond got Dr. Grant into Jurassic Park? I’ll fund your dig, for the next few years. And why? Because he was trying to buy an expert opinion.
And if your individual research doesn’t quite jibe with the doomsday scenarios that would advance the interests of those supporting your research, you can call it ‘inconclusive’, or you could ‘speculate’ – or say it ‘requires more research.’ And they are then given a statement to endorse – that the climate is changing, and humans are contributing.
And the fact that Climate is such a wide-ranging science, with such general media support and so many hands in the pot, it’s not too hard to justify plausible deniability, citing the limited nature of your research and the complex nature of climate, and just not contradict the alarmism. Particularly, if they have no reason to question the results of other researchers. And THIS is an important point too: Often, people who have divulged into a certain discipline, can be remarkably lacking in collateral knowledge. Simply put – a scientist that specializes in fruit bats does not necessarily know how to spot-check a meteorologist.
But every now and then, an ostensibly honest scientist, not realizing they are threatening dogma, will object to alarmist claims being based on their research by powerful politicians and interest groups – well, they are chased off campuses like witches. And have been exposed to – no other way to say it – a bizarre, almost tribal persecution. It’s something that most honest scientists – again with no particular reason to question ‘climate science’ over any other group – honestly don’t believe until it happens to them. (Judith Curry is one, although many other examples abound).
This is the ‘Lukewarmist’. Who will cite the same facts and general predictions as Richard Lindzen, but will not openly debunk the alarmism. Not in the face of the global, world, political, and financial interests, heavily invested in green, that are now at stake.
And no one is more under pressure to prove their case than the small clique of alarmists that sold the scare in the first place.

I agree completely. I’m still baffled as to how the author came up with a value of 0.64C for 2014. The graph makes it clear that number is wrong, and there are tons of contemporary articles referring to the value as 0.68C.
Once you account for that bizarre error and the change in baseline, the difference this post highlights vanishes completely.

“Neither of these indicates any real change in the data or results, much less a change justifying rhetoric like saying this proves “government ‘scientists’ [are] altering ‘official’ temperature records.”
I read that in disbelief. Karl et al adjust the data and create a new data set. They are so proud of their adjustments, they hold press conferences to yell the results from the rafters. But you don’t think that ‘government scientists are altering official temperature records?’
Religion is powerful.

Brandon S?
I have comments disappear all the time on this blog. It’s just their censorship.