Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 01/15/2013

Time and again the proponents of catastrophic climate change use the mantra of “settled science” to shout down their critics. This is nothing less than blind faith that science actually knows what is going on in the complex environment that regulates this planet's climate. Imagine a part of that system that is literally only 10km from anywhere on Earth, a component of our environment that science thought it understood quite well. Now imagine the embarrassment when a major review in a noted journal finds that previous datasets associated with this component are wrong and have been wrong for more than a quarter of a century. Yet that is precisely what has happened. The area in question is Earth's stratosphere and the impact of this report is devastating for climate scientists and atmospheric modelers everywhere…….How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.”   To Read More….

My Take - The one thing that can be taken away from this article is that "climate science" wasn't so much about science as the name implies.  The reality is that when you read this article it takes you back 30 years and from what I have read over the years it would appear that during that time there wasn't much concern about this nor was there much confidence as to whether it was a legitimate 'science' even.   Is it any wonder that no one was really all that careful about what 'data' they came up with?  I have to believe that no one checked it because no one cared.  Government grant money made that all change. 

But whether ‘climate science’ was considered real science or not it doesn’t excuse what the author calls ‘sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science' or how current ‘climate scientists’ could blindly accept this kind of data ‘when their models could not be reconciled with nature’.  As I have so often said in the past.  Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality and their models and reality didn’t mesh.  That should have set bells off, but it didn’t.  Why?  Government grant money was based on providing ‘proof’ that global warming was a manmade phenomenon and only massive government control, nationally and internationally, could save humanity from the coming ecological catastrophe.  The reality of the corruption of ‘climate science’ and ‘climate scientists’ is coming to the fore, leading everyone ‘to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field.”  The author goes on to say that ‘this is not acceptable behavior”, but what it is in reality is a “race for fame” and “government funding”. 

When politics collides with truth, there are only one of two courses a person can take.  Become corrupted or be the rock in the current.  And when those who are supposed to be purveyors of truth fail to be the rock in the current, there is a penalty has to be paid.  At some point I have to believe that someone will be prosecuted for fraud over all of this.