More data faking
Sea Level Rise Retroactively Triples At Envisat – Overnight
If this were true, these new buildings in Broome will be underwater in a couple of years. Check out images taken on Monday. The high tides here are the same as they were 50 and even 100 years ago… Images below at the same spot 50 years apart.
Envisat was the bad girl of satellites, because she refused produce the results Hansen et al were looking for. After ten years of showing very little sea level rise (red), the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set (blue) to produce almost 3X the rise rate.
Axiom # 1 for climate data : All adjustments trend towards increased funding.
Un … freaking … believable. The same story of upwards global warming adjustments gets repeated over and over and over again – by many different government-funded agencies.
One would expect a Gaussian distribution of error, but we see adjustments that are almost exclusively skewed in one direction – to match a political agenda.
Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball comments on the above:
It appears there is an orchestrated campaign to counteract the growing awareness among the public that there is something seriously wrong with the IPCC science. Politicians are also using declining economies as a vehicle for reassessing priorities so in many countries research funding is being withdrawn.
Australian climate scientist Bob Carter comments:
I hate to admit to sharing a conspiracy view, but I’m sure you’re right. The recent Nature CO2 versus T lead/lag paper is another example. The various revisions that we are being regularly subjected to at the moment are clearly dominoes that are being stacked up for use in what is intended to be the 5AR end-game.
But I must admit that the Envisat revision has just left me shaking my head, for if it really is the case that the revision has been crafted for political reasons (and it is hard to conclude otherwise), then the implication is beyond horrendous. Nearly all of the most influential papers on climate change today involve at some point large amounts of computer massaging of data, often in ways which result in the “correction” of real world data by modelling assumptions or algorithms, and always in ways which are too complex for the average reader (or even referee) to be able to check.
The clear implication of the Enivisat revision is that you can trust NONE of these papers, no matter how prestigious the government organisation that releases them or the scientific journal that publishes them. That the entire field of climate science is thereby corrupted is one thing, but what is most distressing is the lack of any obvious means whereby the situation can start to be corrected.
And yes, I know that this has been obvious for years, viz. Climategate, Glaciergate …. NASA GISS, NIWA data tampering etc., etc. – but I’m Australian, so it has taken a while for the penny to get to Down Under so that it could drop.
Those of you who have the advantage of remaining Up Over will doubtless be well ahead of the game, so I look forward to hearing constructive suggestions as to what I might be able to do to help counter these latest malfeasances, and even more to any ideas as to how we might be able to stop them at their source.