On a regular basis, the Investor’s Business Daily publishes editorials and articles denying global warming. For an outfit purporting to help people invest their money, it is strange that they provide false, misleading, poorly sourced information. If you are stupid enough to make any investment decisions based on the false idea that global warming is a hoax, you will get burned.
A couple of months ago, they claimed that the temperature record in its raw form—that is, before any adjustments are made to the raw data, shows no warming in over 100 years (see IBD article). This claim is based on the idea that the adjustments to the raw temperature data that the NOAA makes are all part of an extensive, long-term effort to create the myth of a rise in temperature. The adjustments supposedly always lower older temperatures and raise more recent temperatures to create an illusion of an increase over time.
There is no merit to these claims.
Just a few years ago, a group led by Richard Muller, a scientist who was skeptical of the reported upward trend, undertook a careful study of the temperature data. Known as the Berkeley Earth study, it showed that the upward trend was real. They looked at the raw data and at the adjusted data. The trend was clear and undeniable in both cases. From factcheck.org: “Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses.”
Are the adjustments that NOAA makes to the raw data always downward for old dates and upward for recent dates? Of course not. See for example the chart at Fact Check charts. It shows the kinds of adjustments made for a period in the mid-twentieth century. Some adjustments were up and some were down. NOAA states the reasoning on their web site. The reasoning is sound since it involves taking into account changes to how the temperatures were taken in a given locale. Temperature stations have had their hardware changed, their siting changed, the timing of the temperature readings changed, the environment around them has changed, and so on. It simply makes sense to take these changes into account and try to adjust for them.
The IBD editorial cites three people in its attempt to bolster their claims. Every one of these are climate science deniers who have been roundly and rightly criticized for their illogical and easily debunked views. They are Paul Homewood, James Delingpole, and Tony Heller (also known by his web moniker of Steven Goddard).
The IBD calls Paul Homewood a “climate analyst”. He is in fact a retired accountant (according to Washington Post) whose evidence-free claims have been picked up by climate science deniers elsewhere. Homewood’s approach is to find a few temperature stations where the adjustments made a large difference. He clearly does not look at the whole set of stations. To do so would clearly not show pattern he is claiming exists.
James Delingpole is a British journalist with a long history of climate science denial. The IBD cites his claim that the NOAA has never convincingly explained why they adjust the raw temperatures and how the adjustments create a more accurate record. No evidence in favor of Delingpole’s claim is provided by the IBD editorial—it’s a mere assertion. As mentioned above, it is not hard at all to find reasonable, sensible explanations for the adjustments that are made and the NOAA makes these known. To give one example from the NOAA’s web site, “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well-documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) is pretty much a laughingstock in the world of climate science. His claims about sea ice extent and temperature trends have been repeatedly debunked. For several examples, see Expose of Goddard Lies. It’s clear from these examples that Heller is either incompetent or willfully deceptive when trying to understand or present climate data.
These three are the best that IBD can offer to counter the thousands of highly educated scientists who have carefully researched the temperature trends and the reasons for the upward swing. Since I don’t see how giving false information will help their readers make sound business decisions, I can only speculate on what IBD is trying to accomplish. One clear possibility is that they have no real interest in helping their readers invest, but rather want to protect the fossil fuel industry and those who have major holdings there. Yet the fossil fuel industry is a dying industry. It’s death will be a lingering one, though it would be healthier for the planet if it were quicker. We would be better served by accelerating the development of less harmful energy sources. That’s where the growth already is and will continue to be.
