…& more: the skeptic’s revenge

If you can forgive me for writing in a hurry, then I’ll draw your attention once again to the phenomenon I spoke of a few days earlier. That is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might have committed itself to consistent misinterpretation. Whether this actually occurred and, if so, to what extent people are to be held responsible for doing so knowingly and willingly, is another matter, but we’ll come back to that later.

As I previously argued we have good reason to believe climate change is occurring, and also that we do not have conclusive proof that humans are at its roots. That naturally leads to a great deal of scepticism, which is a good thing as long as it does not prevent us from taking on matters effectively. I would consider it to be good thing that such is the trend these days. We might not have a decent climate bill yet, but that is more to the fact of stubborn Chinese officials and the economical unwillingness of nations.

But as there are always two sides to one coin, this news was ‘too good’ to be left well alone. Since 1990 the number of weather stations used by the IPCC has shrunk from a total of 6000 to only 1500. According to some scientists, of which Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts are two familiar names, this is one of the major reasons why numbers so consistently point to higher average temperatures.

This does not necessarily mean the figures have become unreliable. What does seem to make this happen, however, are their geographical locations, or absence of it. Most stations have been removed from high altitudes, the North Pole and countryside. Influences of the first two of these are clear, as temperatures on great heights and the North Pole are high enough to pull down nearly any average temperature, but the countryside is highly significant as well as it generally comes with less heat radiation from asphalt and industry.

Even worse, there is another blow. Temperatures by the IPCC are measured via these weather stations, but they can also be measured via satellite systems. These systems lack one serious disadvantage, namely the one we just mentioned. Their measurements are not tied to geographical locations owing to their ‘3rd person perspective’, meaning more is measured to the same standard and viability to irrelevant or biased fluctuations is less likely. This ‘shows’ itself in the figures: The IPCC temperature on average has been rising, while satellite mappings of this earth’s temperature have shown decreases since 2001.

No opportunities have so far arisen to take a deeper look into the data, so I cannot verify the arguments here presented. The numbers are taken from several newspapers, albeit not the ones I admire best for their quality. It is truly interesting, though, as it shows the nature of science by illuminating its ability and tendency to overthrow consensus, even if matters haven’t reached this point (yet?). It not only shows that data interpretation is highly sensitive to our questions, it also shows that philosophy of science is sometimes right when it stresses that measuring devices, systems or principles can lead us astray.

Do not jump ahead here. I do not mean to say there is no climate change. Still being indebted to scientific consensus (even if fully aware of this), I need a little more in order to accept my beliefs to have been falsified. Lately, some good attempts occurred, though sadly it all came from within the branch that upheld the theory. Not by rational reflection, but by ignorant ways of using ill-founded information.

That is scandalous. The richness of literature prevents nearly everyone from knowing all about the issue, as each case tends to build upon previously collected data. Let it be stressed here that my own thoughts and articles form no exception to this rule whatsoever. The danger of doing so should by now be obvious. Even if it turns out that the IPCC has a good explanation of their weather-station numbers and satellite figures, we still have the Himalaya glaciers as a reminder.