As always, the climate orthodoxy possesses little understanding of how the internet works. They struggle to understand how ‘small, inconsequential issues’ seem to get magnified and blow up in their faces. There is undeniable shock at the Booker articles on temperature adjustments in the Telegraph which have over 35,000 comments and 100,000 social media ‘shares’. Here’s one old explanation (from yours truly):
…deficiencies and uncertainties in climate science are not allowed to become part of everyday discussion…
It is for this reason primarily that Trenberth’s Travesty, Mike’s Nature Trick and Jones’ Hide the Decline are all memes of the post-Climategate age. They carry memetic value because their opposites are pushed relentlessly as part the dominant paradigm, even as scientists apparently discuss doubts in private.
The current episode was set off by relentless ‘hottest year ever’ oversell perpetrated by such sources as AP’s Seth Borenstein. It led Paul Homewood to look at hot areas in the global average starting with Paraguay.
‘…if you want to properly understand an argument or debate you need to look at the primary sources’ reminds Kevin Marshall at manicbeancounter, just as Steven Mosher and a clueless Lubos have not done. Marshall traces the evolution of the story:
With the Booker story exploding, a clutch of scientists and enthusiasts decided they needed to spread their own memes. They picked up a rash of ad hoc excuses to fight the mighty Booker.
Excuse #1 – the adjustments produce no change, by Mosher with BEST data.
Messing with temperature trends strikes anyone as a problem. It did climate consensus supporter Andrew Dodds:
Dodds is everyman – he has the questions anyone would have. Going by Mosher – if an adjusted and unadjusted record are roughly the same, there’re no problems. Which means, if an adjusted record is not the same as its unadjusted progenitor, and actually its opposite in trend, there is a problem.
Numerous stations show change in sign, shape, gaps, everything … by way of adjustment. Many of them end up with a warm trend. Accordingly, there is skepticism. Which brings us to Excuse #2.
#2 – we make cooling adjustments too! – by Victor Venema and others.
To prove the adjustments don’t just warm records all over the place, Venema whips out this graph of sea temperatures, where he says ‘scientists’ cooled a steep warming (grey dashed line) to a more gentle one. Hurray!
What about the Dodds criterion? The adjustments change the shape of the trend dramatically. Surely, this is a case for natural extreme skepticism.
Dodds may not know this but the global record is subject to such large-scale trend-altering adjustments at several points. With every adjustment, a piece of the climate orthodox narrative fits better with the instrumental temperature record.
Venema’s graph shows a 1910-1940 adjustment. Here’s an adjustment Phil Jones proposed for 1940-1960:
Here is the result of an adjustment Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way propose 1997 onward:
Global temperatures are not derived hands-off, they are beaten into shape. They are malleable and they accommodate everything from 19th century proxy records to sulphate aerosols to the ‘pause’. As Steven Goddard notes, ‘the fact that they can provide theoretical justifications for data tampering, tells us absolutely nothing about the correctness of what they are actually doing’.
All Booker and Delingpole have demonstrated is this. In the global warming narrative, if you adjust something, something else breaks: Dodds, Mosher and Venema cannot all be happy at the same time.