An article at the website Clintel gives as good an illustration as you could ask for of the corruption of climate science and how that bad science is just accepted, gladly, by policymakers. Clintel is an organization devoted to doing actual solid, defensible research, not ideological and money-driven research designed to enhance politicians control over the population and make more money for billionaires through the renewable energy scam. The article describes how Dutch meterological authorities had accepted a piece of research done by completely manipulating actual raw data until it gave the answer the researchers wanted (referred to as “adjusting” or “homogenizing” or some other euphemism by the hysterics) and then applying bogus statistical methods.
The goal was to remove warming periods that occurred before 1950 to make the first fifty years of that century look colder than they were, thereby making it appear that there was much larger warming after 1950 than really occurred. This is common hysterics trick–temperatures aren’t really very high in recent decades, so let’s create more warming by making the past colder. The hysterics used their fake and manipulated data to claim that the Netherlands was experiencing more heat waves in the current era. To a legitimate scientist, this is completely despicable, but climate hysterics are not scientists in any sense of the word. Some real scientists pointed out the flaws and after a very lengthy fight, got the garbage data and methods changed back to something resembling reality. And the claim about more heat waves now is clearly no longer true.
I have learned that, and I believe that the US should adopt a law making certain requirements present before research can be used to support any legislative, executive or court action, you always need to look at the raw data as collected; have every adjustment to data fully explained and justified; if there are adjustments to data, show what alternative potential adjustment methods could have been used and what the result of those would be; describe fully all experimental and statistical methods and describe all alternative potential methods that could have been used and what the results would have been using those. Then policymakers and citizens can make a more informed judgment about whether to believe any of the garbage masquerading as climate science today. (Clintel Article)
Since the price of energy from solar and wind has created a significant increase in the cost of electricity and related good, the general public are starting to notice the hoax that global warming is and how it has increased their cost of living.
What do you think the odds of getting your suggested regulation on climate studies passed in today’s political condition?
As I stated previously, Geoff S who posts at Climate Etc has done extensive work on documenting similar issues in Australia.
While it is currently unknown (at least publically) it is rumored that Keith Briffa, one of the climate scientists, was the person who released the climategate emails in part due to his disgust of the ethics of his fellow climate scientists. There are indications that the insiders in the paleo climate science arena do know who released the climate gate emails.