Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data

really so accurate we would not have events like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 in which they released a new version of temperature history that changed it so drastically the 21st century went from "no trend" to "strong warming", or https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest... in which they reveal they can't even decide how hot it was in 2016, and routinely reannounce old temperatures in ways that invalidate world records! If you compare old datasets to new datasets (and I mean for the same years, not in the sense of newly added data) then climatologists just changing their mind about the past has doubled reported warming over time: https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/#... Scientifically this is nonsense. If they develop doubts about the accuracy of old observations they need to widen their error bars. What they actually do is "fix" the data to bring it into line with what they think should be happening and then report tiny error bars, but you aren't allowed to do this if you're doing real science. Hopefully you will read those links and recalibrate your understanding of the honesty of climate academics. > Secondly global cooling/new ice age was a pretty fringe theory even in the 60s and 70s. No it wasn't. Again, I'm afraid climatologists are lying to you on a scale you probably don't believe is plausible, but they are. Pick random papers from those years and read them, or see the analysis below. You'll see discussion of global cooling was standard, as it had to be because the official government temperature datasets at that time showed temperatures in steady decline since the mid 1940s. They no longer show that cooling period because they were edited to remove it. Or do the same exercise for news reports. It wasn't fringe, it was the consensus of the climatological community in that time and widely reported as such. Wikipedia won't tell you any of this because any attempt to actually correct the record is immediately reverted. There's an enormous collective effort to keep people in the dark about the history of the field. Even just a few days ago I called out an article about beaver dams for lying about global cooling, where the lie is easily detectable just by reading the original paper they mentioned. They claimed it was a pioneer paper that helped change belief away from cooling towards global warming. In fact it reported global cooling as an undisputed fact and didn't talk about man made climate change at all. They lie because they know people won't check, and they think it's for the greater good. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38612992 > every single year since 1965 more papers have been written and published predicting global warming than cooling It wasn't the case. This is yet another example of how climatologists lie to you. The trick here is twofold: 1. Peterson et al arbitrarily ignored a lot of papers. 2. Some papers were classified incorrectly. For example one paper stated that whilst there had been some warming overall since the 1850s, there had also been a long period of cooling in the 20th century, this paper was classed as supporting global warming and not global cooling. But global cooling as a phenomenon was referring to the period since the 1940s. Back then it was widely accepted that the world had warmed as it came out of the little ice age up until the end of WW2, when it then began cooling again. There's a better analysis here that uses a 3x larger database of papers, and it shows that the media in the 70s weren't simply making up a fictional, non-existent scientific consensus. That would have been extraordinary, after all. There was an overwhelming majority of papers talking about cooling in that period. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cool... Climatologists lie about this because after they changed their mind, they never went through any kind of field-wide rigorous post-mortem process. Papers weren't retracted, careers weren't unmade, procedures weren't changed. There's no way to square their present day claims with the reality that they used to believe the world was cooling in the mid-20th century, when fossil fuels were being burned on a massive scale. So they deny it, cover it up and attack anyone who double checks.

individual weather station readings and also the composite averages post-hoc. About half of all warming visible in the (current) temperature record for the 20th century actually derives from administrative adjustments made after 2008. You therefore cannot actually say how hot a particular year was, as far as climatologists are concerned. The past is not fixed. To make a claim about how hot it was in city X on date Y you must also reference dataset version Z. This has a lot of strange effects. For example we often read about record setting temperatures. These records can be "unbroken" [1]: "NOAA noted in a Friday press release that the previous record was set in July 2016, and tied in 2019 and 2020. But as Bill Frezza, a sharp-eyed reader of Retraction Watch noticed, the agency’s website tells a different story. This press release, dated Aug. 15, 2019, and still live on noaa.gov, proclaims July 2019 to be the hottest month on record for the planet." Temperature datasets are like software (actually they are software). Some do occasional releases that make big changes. Others are actually continuously 'deployed'. As they explain: "NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values." For many years climatologists debated the nature and causes of the "pause" in global warming that started around the turn of the millennium. Many papers were published on this e.g. by the UK Met Office [2], many newspaper articles were written [3] etc. Temperatures had stopped going up and nobody knew why. No problem. The pause and all the many barrels of ink spilled on it, was simply written out of history. It was all just a big data mistake, they concluded.[4] Actually the pause never happened at all, and they proceeded to edit it out of the temperature databases. They started removing the pause around 2015. By their own telling they can't even accurately measure trends in temperatures in past 20 years, but, for sure, they know what will happen in 80 years. It's not rational to treat a community that behaves in such a way as if they cannot make mistakes. They have repeatedly done so in the past, by their own admission! [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest... [2] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metoffi... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 [4] https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700

Intellectual fraud. Often this works by taking a normal English term and then at the start of your paper giving it an incorrect definition. Again this will replicate just fine but the result is still misinformation. 4. Incoherent concepts. What exactly does R0 mean in epidemiology and precisely how is it determined? You can replicate the calculations that are used but you won't be calculating what you think you are. 5. A lot of research isn't experimental, it's purely observational. You can't go back and re-observe the things being studied, only re-analyze the data they originally collected. Does this count? 6. Incredibly obvious findings. Wealthy parents have more successful children, etc. It'll replicate all right but so what? Why are taxpayers being made to fund this stuff? 7. Fraudulent practices that are nonetheless normalized within a field. The article complains about scientists Photoshopping western blots (a type of artifact produced in biology experiments). That's because editing your data in ways that make it fit your theory is universally understood to be fraud ... except in climatology, where scientists have developed a habit of constantly rewriting the databases that contain historical temperature records. And by "historical" we mean "last year" here, not 1000 years ago. These edits always make global warming more pronounced, and sometimes actually create warming trends where previously there were none (e.g. [1]). Needless to say climatologists don't consider this fraud. It means if you're trying to replicate a claim from climatology, even an apparently factual claim about a certain fixed year, you may run into the problem that it was "true" at the time it was made and may even have been replicated, but is now "false" because the data has been edited since. Epidemiology has a somewhat similar problem - they don't consider deterministic models to be important, i.e. it may be impossible to get the same numbers out of a model as a paper presents, even if you give it identical inputs, due to race conditions/memory corruption bugs in the code. They do not consider this a problem and will claim it doesn't matter because the model uses a PRNG somewhere, or that they "replicated" the model outputs because they got numbers only 25% different. What does it even mean to say a claim does or does not replicate, in fields like these? All this takes place in an environment of near total institutional indifference. Paper replicates? Great. Nobody cares, because they all assumed it would. Paper doesn't replicate, or has methodological errors making replication pointless? Nobody cares about that either. Your proposal suggests blocking publication until replication is done by independent labs. That won't work, because even if you found some way to actually enforce that (not all grants come from the government!), you'll just end up with lots of papers that can be replicated but are still nonsensical for other reasons. [1] https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700

places like airport runways, and more. Climatologists scrape this data from the internet or collect it from logbooks and then try to work out what's happening, but the data is super noisy. Now the way science works is that you characterize the uncertainty in your data and propagate it through any calculations you do, in order to track your uncertainty intervals. Then you communicate those and take them into account when making predictions. But in climatology they don't do this. Instead they use lots of algorithms and manual tweaks to try and "fix" the data to bring it into line with what they know it "should" be, and then report the data without CIs, as having 100% confidence. For example if a time series at a weather station is stable for 20 years, then experiences a short break, then it returns but the average is consistently 0.3 degrees different than before, they infer that it must have moved and they then "correct" it back to the previous baseline. If there are gaps in the data then they generate fake readings by interpolating between the nearest alternative weather stations, and so on. Outsiders might expect that they would investigate and try to improve the quality of their source data but they don't. Like, if their algorithms infer a station move, they don't contact the station operator to figure out if that really happened. They just assume their corrections are fine and move on. Another fun thing they do is alter data that was already published. When they update their algorithms for deciding what data points to include/drop/change, they don't just use it for new data running forwards. They reprocess the entire historical data set. That can yield outcomes that would normally be taken as a clear indicator of scientific fraud, for example where NOAA declared a temperature record, and a few years later declared a new record that was lower than the previous one [1]. Or where scientists invalidated decades of published papers (thousands of them) by deciding that the temperature trend in the first 15 years of the century was totally different to what had previously been reported: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 The underlying data on which those papers were built was announced to be all wrong, but nothing was retracted! That's how science functions. And the best part is that they've trained the public so well that for anyone who calls any of this fraud, as you just did, they are instantly ostracised for being a heretical Denier. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

invited IPCC reviewer was blocked specifically because he was trying to actually review papers carefully and was asking for data i.e. wasn't one of "the team", as climatologists like to call it. https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/ I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer. Go read the whole article, it's extremely damaging to the credibility of the IPCC. This stuff is no surprise because "The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical", it's also true. The idea that scientists celebrate and pop the bubbly when they get proven wrong is academic propaganda. Yes, if the overturning of a paradigm isn't too embarrassing to the old guard and creates lots of new potential papers for the next generation then they'll get over it and get on with it (ex. quantum physics). But far more common is an overturning that goes like this: 1. All your answers are based on a shoddy pseudo-scientific paradigm and should be retracted. 2. But we don't know the answers either, so there is no new paradigm. In other words, science is invalidated but there's no new direction to go in that lets something be salvaged from the ruins. Academia very visibly cannot handle this. Nor will it ever be able to handle this, it's inherent to the incentive structure. The signatories to this declaration are outsiders, so what climatologists do next when their paradigm is overturned just isn't their problem. They don't care, all they care about is that science as a whole isn't seen to be exaggerating or lying. But climatologists very much do care because if their current paradigm is overturned then they have nowhere to go, no new paradigm to reorient around. Their careers would lie in ruins with no way to rebuild. So, they fight. This dynamic exists in all fields of course which is one of the root causes of the replication crisis. It's why it's called a "crisis" even by academic insiders, not just annoying online critics. Sure, if papers were being routinely replicated as part of the normal scientific process, and sure, if replication failure was rare, then your argument would hold water. But neither of those is correct: replication efforts are unusual one off events, and the failure rate is so high that just assuming everything said by these fields is wrong would be a perfectly rational reaction. That's clearly not normal or an intended part of the process. Moreover many papers fail to replicate for highly suspicious reasons indicative of fraud. Climatology is in an even worse state: it's one of those fields that just systematically rejects the whole idea that its work should be replicable! Consider these two links: 1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=glob... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 The first link yields about 50,000 results for me, most of them papers discussing the long pause or haitus in global warming that kicked off the millenium. That's a lot of papers! The second link is where the climatologists who maintain the historical temperature databases decided that no such pause ever happened, it was all just measurement error. They release a new version of history and at a stroke, all those papers are now non-replicable! So they retracted all 50,000 papers that were built on bad data right? Ha ... ha ... <gasp> ... <splutter> ... ha. No. Climatologists pull this kind of stunt because they've done so before and got away with it. Go read any of the papers that deal with global cooling before 1975 or so. They will discuss the long term cooling trend in the 20th century and present graphs of temperatures going down. Now go check those same graphs today and no cooling is visible. Again, climatologists decided their data had been bad and rewrote it from scratch (N.B. this is considered fraud in other fields). Again, none of those papers were ever retracted. What do you even do with a field that routinely invalidates whole decades of its own research, making their findings totally non-replicable unless you somehow find old copies of temperature datasets, and does so with no retractions at all? Real scientists reject it!

an example - the problem I'm getting at here is what it reveals about the methodologies and culture. Specifically, how do we know that people who claim to be scientists are actually using the scientific method? That's the topic I responded to. For decades the US data collection system was degrading in ways that created false warming, but it wasn't the people who are paid to study climate who raised the alarm. It was volunteers. That should be a serious problem for any rational person who wants to know true things; scientists are meant to care about measurement error and take steps to minimize it. So you'd want at least some sort of post-mortem process to identify the root causes of this collective institutional failure, but, it didn't happen. Instead data accuracy became politicized and now researchers refuse to use the CRN even though it was built specifically to resolve disputes over data quality! The problem here is actually more severe than this one case. Climatologists were well aware of other problems with temperature data! Data quality problems are common in science so that's not inherently an issue. But the scientific approach is to quantify and then communicate the flaws in data through CIs/error bars, then propagate those through any statistical derivation you do, and finally be honest about what the CIs are telling you even if that's "we can't say much". That's the point you were making originally and we agree. Climatologists don't do this. Instead they think up reasons the data must be flawed, "fix" it via post-processing and then issue new dataset versions without error bars. They don't only do this for data collected long ago. Once they opened that pandora's box they couldn't stop and now temperature readings collected even just 5 years ago are subject to large scale revisions post-hoc. These revisions don't just change individual data points. Entire trends appear or disappear due to the revisions. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest... https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan... That behavior is considered fraud in other fields and for good reason: the temptation to change the data to confirm your theory is too great if you allow that. Climatologists though, don't consider it fraud, they think it's normal and fine. Sure enough, there are problems like temperatures as measured by satellites and weather balloons not matching the modified temperature timeseries from ground based weather stations. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see if the ground station data was corrupted but pointing out this divergence is considered "denialism" and verboten. All this opens up lots of meta-scientific questions like, is the scientific method objective? Do the institutions attempt to enforce the usage of it? What even is the scientific method anyway, can you write it down in a way nobody will object to? Clearly here we have a major disconnect: if you did what climatologists do in a physics experiment, your papers would be retracted and you'd be booted out in disgrace. Yet both fields claim to be scientific. the vast majority of climate change deniers takes are along the lines I described - "it's snowing, ergo suck it libs" Sure, and that's indeed not a useful rebuttal to claims of long term trends. I don't know about "vast majority" because I don't know of any surveys that could be used to check that claim. But unfortunately it's also no longer particularly meaningful to check. Climatologists, governments and media are now all too happy to attribute individual forest fires, cold years, hot years etc to climate change. If they can do it then "it's snowing ergo suck it libs" is in fact a valid argument by the scientific institution's own standards. Hence my point: are they really scientific?

point. Because the CIs were widening, this trick created an appearance of warming where previously there hadn't been any. Generally, the only way to be sure something isn't being messed with is to review the methodologies. The tampering is public, it's not a secret and they don't hide the fact that they do it, they just don't mention it to the general public and rely on the media to not report what they're doing. It works: awareness of this problem is incredibly low. Still, you can compare the different 'versions' they release over time to see the enormous magnitude of the changes, or you can read the occasional reports that surface in outlets like Nature when really massive revisions occur, and then you can remember that scientists aren't meant to do that. They're meant to add error bars if they have doubts about their data and propagate that uncertainty through to their final graphs and predictions. Climatologists don't do this. Instead they argue that they know temperatures should be going up, so if it isn't, there must be something wrong with the data. Nothing a quick model can't fix. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 "An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science. That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium."

explosive release of methane from the ocean floor and so on. These things haven't actually been seen, they are hypothetical and supposed to kick in with higher temperatures. The warming trend is created by the sort of adjustments you talk about. You don't have to take my word for it. Read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 "An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science. That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium." So they were reporting a pause in temperature increases, which is by the way still readily visible in other non-surface datasets like satellites and weather balloons. It was even reported in IPCC 2013. And then, one day, they edited the data, released a new version and poof. The pause was gone. In fact, they claim it had never happened at all! If they were really just tweaking a few stations up and a few stations down with no impact, that Nature article shouldn't be possible, should it? And how can a rational person have confidence in the predictions of a group of people who for many years reported one trend in global data and then one day decides, oops, actually, everything we said was wrong. It's not rational to treat the predictions of these people as reliable when even their measurements aren't - by their own telling.

papers but reason, correctly, that the media/political set will not call them on it, so they can get away with making their predictions about the future come true by simply altering the past. In many cases temperature graphs for massive regions that were flat in the past have become sloped in the present. Consider this front page New York Times article from 1989: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fai... "US data since 1895 fail to show warming trend" Look at the graph in the lower left hand corner for long term US temperatures and notice that it's flat. The US should certainly have warmed between 1895 and 1989 given GHG emissions in this time frame but it didn't. Now go look up a temperature history of the USA from modern sources like the NOAA website. Observe that it's sloped upwards for the same time frame. The past has been changed. In the first part of the century there was a notorious so-called pause in global warming. Temperatures were once again not going up. Scientists fixed this by rewriting the past once again: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 If there was actually runaway global warming, they would not need to do this sort of thing. But they do, because otherwise, warming does not appear in the data. Given that the temperature record is not trustworthy by climatologists own admission it would be incredibly destructive and unwise to do geo-engineering on the basis of such flimsy data. It could easily make things far worse. In fact we just finished up with a global crisis; one that appears to have started in a lab that was tampering with viruses in an attempt to pre-solve a future disease crisis that existed primarily in the heads of the scientists researching it. The scale of it was then exaggerated by modellers who didn't understand what they were modelling and who have utterly refused to accept evidence that their suggested interventions had no effect. Academia is just not reliable enough to take drastic action on the basis of their predictions and people who keep denying this are, in my view, the real deniers.