One of the key principles to sound science is “ceteris paribus.” With any experiment, one wants to “control” as many outside forces as possible to isolate the impact of the independent variable upon the dependent variable. The posting: Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature attempted to demonstrate an experiment where CO2’s impact on the climate was isolated by controlling for as many outside factors as possible.
In another post, two locations in close proximity to themselves were used to demonstrate that constant CO2 couldn’t be the explanation of the temperature differential. New York City has an upward trend consistent with the urban heat island effect, and West Point has flat to falling temperatures. Both have identical CO2, but different temperatures. CO2, being the constant in the equation, can’t be the explanation for the differential. Here is the post: CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does.
Tony Heller over at Real Science really took this concept to a whole new level. He found two cities right across a lake. One city is well developed and subject to the urban heat island effect, whereas the other is relatively undeveloped. From those two locations, a real scientist would recognize that the one data set is corrupted, and would rely on data from the uncorrupted data set.
Sure enough, the two data sets demonstrate wildly different temperatures histories. The one is clearly corrupted by the urban heat island effect, and the other is not. One is sharply increasing and the other is actually falling.
Any real scientist would recognize the corruption and eliminate the one data set from the record. CO2 is equal on both sides of the lake, and the close proximity allows one to be a relatively good proxy for the region. Using both simply corrupts the data, and reduces the value of the output of a model by increasing uncertainty. How did NASA address this issue? They simply ignored it, and use a data set showing warming in that region.
If the real scientists over in the Aerospace Division of NASA ever used these derelict practices NASA would never have put a man on the moon. Imagine if a Drug Company attempted to get a drug through FDA approval using this kind of research. The work the NASA Climate Division is doing makes the Tobacco Companies’ Science Divisions look competent. As long as the climate alarmists rely on the garbage ground measurement data sets, they will never gain any real credibility, no matter what the “consensus” says. People simply aren’t that stupid, and they can smell a rat from a mile away.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
h/t Real Science