The Need for Non-Concensus Voices in Climate Science

[IanC]

As a newcomer to the AGW wars I have found it very confusing that the pro AGW side always seems to fall back on the excuse that anyone that disagrees should be ignored because of 'consensus' and lack of 'peer review'. I have always thought that ideas should stand on their own merits, open to debate.

While bouncing around from one site to another I have seen many instances of 'settled science' that haven't passed the sniff test. From massive weightings given to anomalous tree rings, to grafting of one type of data to a different type, to correlation equals causation problems, to publication bias, to unrepeatable methodologies, etc....

here are two links that show how non-peer reviewed and non-climate scientists can and do help the understanding of climate change

Weather station data hidden from public; scientists allege government cover-up

The theory of global warming began to explain one simple set of factsm-- surface temperature monitoring stations have shown a roughly one degree rise over the past century. But just where does these temperature readings come from? Most are reported by volunteer stations, usually no more than a thermometer inside a small wooden hut or below a roof overhang. In the US, 1,221 such stations exist, all administered by the National Climatic Data Center, a branch of the NOAA.

Two months ago, I reported on an effort to validate this network. A volunteer group headed by meteorologist Anthony Watts had found serious problems. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations -- on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.
Soon thereafter, a Seattle radio station interviewed the head of the NCDC, Dr. Thomas Peterson, informed him of the effort and quizzed him about the problems. Three days later, the NCDC removed all website access to station site locations, citing "privacy concerns." Without this data (which had been public for years), the validation effort was blocked. No more stations could be located.

DailyTech - New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record


My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

Climate science is too insulated. They could especially use more input from the statistical scientists.

 

[westwall]

IanC,

I am beginning to think of climatology as the modern version of eugenics. They look the same and more importantly they smell the same....bad.

 

[IanC]

IanC,

I am beginning to think of climatology as the modern version of eugenics. They look the same and more importantly they smell the same....bad.

not eugenics, equalitarianism. the default position is that everyone should be the same except that there is some evil human interference (racism) that is causing disparate outcomes. as with global warming and CO2, racism is a legitimate factor but only a fraction of the overall reasons for the unwelcome differences.