Friday, 12 December 2014



  1. I agree with Ridley that some scientists cheat, but that has nothing to do with climate science as a whole.

    In the 3 problems he stated, the first was not about climate science and didn't even show a problem since the study concluded the opposite of what the supposed conspiring scientists wanted to demonstrate. So the scientists apparently did follow the evidence against prior biases.

    The second issue did not show wrong-doing but merely suggested there might be. In particular, it cited some evidence to show a location had not changed as alleged by BOM and suggested BOM had not published its algorithms; however, BOM did claim they had documentary evidence for the change and were following peer-reviewed practices, "A daily homogenized temperature data set for Australia", International Journal of Climatology, Volume 33, Issue 6, pages 1510–1529, May 2013. It's not clear to me if BOM made their case, but I don't think Ridley made his case.

    More noteworthy, the procedure BOM has been following to produce the homogenized ACORN-SAT data has produced an extra cold bias vs the raw data[*]. So Ridley complains that some of the raw data has been homogenized to show some warming but doesn't seem bothered or has not realized that most of the homogenizing, using the same exact algorithm apparently, has resulted overall in cooling for Australia over what the raw data would indicate.

    For the third example, the problem of someone in high position supposedly being biased and hypocritical. I don't see either in the cases mentioned. Nurse made a general rant against people who are repeatedly against scientists (mentioning climate science as a particular category). He wasn't merely attacking people who have disagreed with his views. The fact is that the vast majority of experts accept that the evidence strongly suggests man is responsible for genuine global warming. This isn't something Nurse invented. Nurse also didn't single out anyone, neither on climate science nor about GMOs or pesticides. And if I understood the few online articles I skimmed from google searches, there isn't even an issue with the Dupree bees study in Canada (problem 1 above) since the conclusion there was the opposite of the supposed conspiracy from the 2010 note.

    I was not able at this time to carefully read some of the other links mentioned, but I think the focus of the article was on those 3 issues. Did I miss something?

    [*] > "Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the bureau's data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia," [said Dr. Andy Pitman, center director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at the University of NSW, and Dr. Lisa Alexander, chief investigator at the center, according to the article, "Bureau of Meteorology defended over temperature records by climate scientists", by GRAHAM LLOYD, The Australian, September 02, 2014 12:00AM].

    1. I should have added that "crushed and buried" does sound harsh.

      Here is part of the context:
      > But when they are serial offenders - and there are serial offenders - they should be crushed and buried.
      > I think if we cannot get politicians and lobbyists to take scientists seriously we need to take them on.
      > And I am certainly prepared to do that. I have done in the past.

      "Crushed and Buried" might be interpreted as things Nurse has already done in the past.

      It could easily be referring to destroying the legitimacy of the "offenders" before the public, such as might partly happen via public debate. [It may or may not be implying dirty play.]


Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.