WUWT readers surely recall this story: BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors
While not issuing a press release, the scientists have responded to press inquiries.
Graham Lloyd, The Australian
Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record.
“Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’
The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.
“The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said.
“We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.
“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said.
I’m sure that crap data apologists Mosher and Stokes will be along to tell us why this isn’t significant, and why HadCRUT is just fine, and we shouldn’t give any attention to these errors. /sarc
Jo Nova adds:
Without specifically admitting he has found serious errors, they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not. Significantly, they do not disagree with any of his claims.
Most significantly they don’t even mention killer issue of the adjustments for site moves — the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.
More on her take here.
Jo makes a good point. Why is it that skeptics always seem to be the ones that find the errors in climate data, hockey sticks, and other data machinations produced by the well-funded climate complex?
Perhaps it is because they simply don’t care, and curiosity takes a back seat to money. Like politicians looking to the next election, Climate Inc. has become so dependent on the money train, their main concern is the next grant application.
Eisenhower had it right. We’ve all heard about Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address, warning to us about the “military industrial complex”. It’s practically iconic. But what you probably didn’t know was that same farewell speech contained a second warning, one that hints at our current situation with science. He said to the Nation then:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.