(The Swamp) - We've been covering stories about weather and climate since 1971. So,
for about 38 years, we've noticed a distinct tendency among some people with doctoral degrees
to fancy themselves, "climatologists." This is, of course, unfortunate.
Most of these people are little more than snake oil salesmen - each with his special interest
impaled upon one unproven theory or another - each with a treasured tenure, perpetually
hanging by a thread. Their "science" is a house of cards. Their arguments - tortuous pits
of misery and deception.
As one of our acquaintances once told us, "It's an easy science - all bluff, no stuff."
Why believe her? Data.
We'd been used to questioning data since a math professor explained, in 1968,
the difference between statistics and actuarial numbers. Actuarial numbers are science.
Statistical data is guessing. Guessing isn't science.
There are many in the scientific community today who still think the numbers they have
seen are valid. Unfortunately, we have learned that they are not. They are not dishonest
numbers. The numbers are simply statistical, not actuarial. How can this be? Because
we have admission that the numbers have been tampered with.
We already know about the poor record keeping - for whatever purpose - by Russia and China.
Every study out there has either done a comparative number crunch with the false numbers
from those two countries, or the studies themselves are derivatives of studies whose numbers
are incomplete. Some numbers are made up, but this may be more of a programming-type
error than any kind of "plot." Included in these numbers are those from NOAA and NASA,
not because they are bad people, but because their data gathering methods are either
derivative or flawed..
The only conclusion that any reasonable person can make is that NO conclusions can be
currently made about anything having to do with the Earth's temperature.
Any time you have research which contains questionable data or questionable data gathering
methods, you need more trustworthy data. You would think this principle would be accepted
by all, but now we run headlong into the "peer review" monster. Too many "peers" have
bought into the poor data and have accepted an idea which has no real basis, except as a
hunch. Now we have a real-time questioning of their methods and instead of a scientific
curiosity, we have denial and defensive behavior. The easy science has now become hard
and there is real resentment against having to do real, detective work.
We're not saying that the Earth is or is not warming. We are not saying that humanity is
or is not guilty for whatever is or is not happening globally.
We ARE saying that we need to start over.
Important people read this blog. It is to these people that we are appealling: PLEASE,
PEOPLE, use your influence - not to take one side or the other - but to DEMAND a
NON-POLITICAL step-by-step RECOUNTING of ALL of the data. And let's put
Physicists and Actuaries in charge of the information aggregation, not "climatologists."
Lindsay? Jim? Bob? Joe?
We are owed this by both sides. American pocketbooks deserve this. We're waiting..
- Dick Anderson
