Memories of the 28th Century

why faked data



I noticed an article today that claimed that the Ozone Hole in the atmosphere over Antarctica was smaller. I read the article, actually skimmed it, and it quickly became clear that whoever wrote it didn’t know anything about the matter, and hadn’t bothered checking old files. I made a few comments, and then left it. But I started wondering again who or what is having articles like that one and the things about Anthropogenic Climate Change written and published. The science is poor or completely lacking, and the writers seem to start with interviews with scientists who made only bland, ambiguous statements. The writers don't seem to be bothered by the blandness of the comments and usually ignore those scientific comments and take off about the sky falling due to human activity. I suppose that it is possible that the newspapers or whoever employs the writers have made it clear that because controversy sells papers everything is to be controversial. If the news outlets are pushing ozone and ACC to make more money, then I can understand that; although I find it loathsome.

But that neat answer ignores the matter of government and institutional money funding many people who are investigating the atmosphere or whatever. It is clear that the U.S. government, at least, is not interested in gathering knowledge, because government agencies have systematically altered data regarding temperatures. The data now agrees more with the models than with the actual readings. This not something I made up; the U.S. House has held hearings and received testimony that data was manipulated, see link below. It is interesting that NOAA refused to comply with requests for information, but read the article. But my question is: Why are the various U.S. and international agencies messing with data to create the impression that human activities have caused warming.

In these times of multiple records altering data that has been around for decades is sure to be noticed. The original data for temperature for 1931 show that it was the hottest year on record, but the data have been changed in the files that the government agencies are using. But why? I would expect year-to-year variations in such data. What advantage is gained for NOAA or NASA or some other agency to show that the last fifty years have been the hottest? I wish that were a rhetorical question, but it is a real one.

It is possible that these items are just two more examples of scientists cheating. There has been a huge amount of scientific malpractice all around the world. From the case records of scientific malpractice most cases are people trying to make their research look better for personal gain, whether for tenure, promotion, improvement of reputation, or something similar. It might be that the personal gains of many people together have resulted in even more misconduct. Someone once commented that it was hard for him to believe that any widespread conspiracy was possible, based on the trouble he had organizing small events; I largely concur, people aren't often willing to do as instructed in any activity. So creating a worldwide conspiracy that would create fake science and falsely push ideas like Anthropogenic Climate Change and the Ozone Hole is not likely. The simplest explanation is that many people are following a crowd, because that's safest, and they are faking data to make their results match whatever the bulk of the data says in the scientific journals. That is the simplest explanation; it requires no extraneous entities to be added, so it fits Occam's Razor. While I don't think there is a worldwide conspiracy. I think it is likely that within agencies or universities, etc. it is reasonable to expect that people in certain programs are expected to follow the guidelines for that organization (fit in or get out). Unfortunately, that leaves us in a position where it would be almost impossible to restore actual facts to science. Atmospheric science isn't the only area where data is made to fit the specifications, instead of hypotheses being created that fit the data.

The next question is what can be done to fight the trend toward falsified data? I plan to point out false data whenever I encounter it, but the damage will already be done. Maybe the wider question is: Why do people prefer faked information over actual facts? That's something to think about. I don't think there is a single, simple answer, but there may be something about the way that people think that makes faked data seem better. II should look for funding to answer these questions. I could probably dream up some data and come to a conclusion within a few months.




https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
https://science.house.gov/news/press...limate-records

Scientific misconduct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Faked science
https://www.economist.com/news/china...oks-good-paper