If their pet theory falls apart due to the unexpected behaviour of the real world scientists should be expected to do science and either modify or abandon the theory. Manufacturing data to in its favor is not usually acceptable as a means of support.
The government agencies in charge of gathering and presenting the data should do so with the utmost regard for accuracy. Suspicion of alteration should be avoided with transparent practices and regular audits by outside non-partisan experts in auditing principles. Scientists need to be held accountable to the public for their work.
In the realm of climate science those charged with collecting the meteorological data on temperature, precipitation, pressure etc need oversight as the accusations of data tampering to support the theory of man made global warming have begun to surface around the world.
It is tough to construct a theory(model) that works if the data is designed to produce the result desired. It will soon become evident that the theory does not track reality. What then? More data tampering??
As discovered by ‘Steven Goddard’ meteorological data tampering was recognized as a potential problem as early as 1907.
With so much taxpayer money being thrown at the man made global warming falsifying for funding should be treated with the utmost seriousness so that the truth about the tampering and the state of the climate can be correctly determined and faced. If man made global warming is a manufactured myth it is best to know this and stop the enormous waste of resources that this has entailed. Let’s get back to science and not allow data tampering to spread as an incurable infestation of government coffers.
As Steven has found it is not just the BoM that is cooking the books NASA and NOAA in the US are altering historical records to produce the desired (warming) result they want. After preaching the catastrophic nature of climate change it would be very embarrassing to have to admit they were so wrong. Best to alter the data to produce desired results, save face and keep the funding flowing.
Or one can always try the following ruse to maintain the insanity.
There might be some true believers in the government who will push it with a straight face.
The need to publish past failed predictions far and wide is required to restrain the exuberance of those who think they know how to forecast the future. It also enlightens the public and how little the ‘experts’ really know so that we don’t put them on pedestals they don’t deserve.
Is it really surprising that we are still here? When it comes to scientific seers it is best to remember the words of a famous philosopher:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell
President Eisenhower was aware of the problem and in his 1961 exit speech warned of the possibility that technological elites could capture the reins of government due to their specialised knowledge.
Climate science was not the correct discipline to use to try to capture power. The weather is something that all have an opinion about and it is difficult to hide the facts that you can see right out your window. In a supposedly ‘warming’ world it is difficult to hide harsh winters like those of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Growing ice in the polar regions can get in the way of humans traveling in those regions. Rescue of people trapped in ice is not evidence of an overheated world. Over 90% ice cover on the Great Lakes in 2013-2014 does not attract adherents to global warming theory.
To maintain a fiction in the face of contrary evidence does not serve science well nor the reputations of the scientists who refuse to acknowledge reality. It makes a mockery of science and creates cartoon characters out of scientists. “Expert’ becomes a term of derision, a boy crying wolf.
When scientists are asked for an opinion and they say such and such will happen if present trends continue reporters need to learn to ask them if they know whether the trend will continue. Scientists must be schooled to resist the temptation to assume the role of oracle and realize that their Phd does not come with a direct line to the truth nor a guarantee of infallibility. Mother Nature has issued recalls on all scientific crystal balls. No one knows the future except her and she is not talking. Those who ignore this conservative practice should expect the mocking satire that comes with failed prognostications. It is safer for scientists to say ‘this is what we think we know. Come back in 10 years to see if we still think the same’ than to elevate their opinion to that of a god. Humility and caution keep us grounded in reality. Certainty can lead to exaggeration and funding. Tough choice. Which would you choose?
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." ~ Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
