With climate alarmists continuing to declare climate debate to be over and asking skeptics to just go away, we are reminded again why it is useful to have two sides in a debate. Few people on any side of any question typically are skeptical of data that support their pet hypotheses. So, in order to have a full range of skepticism and replication applied to all findings, it is helpful to have people passionately on both sides of a proposition.
I am reminded of this seeing how skeptics finally convinced the NOAA that one of its satellites had gone wonky, producing absurd data (e.g. Great Lakes temperatures in the 400-600F range). Absolutely typically, the NOAA initially blamed skeptics for fabricating the data
NOAA’s Chuck Pistis went into whitewash mode on first hearing the story about the worst affected location, Egg Harbor, set by his instruments onto fast boil. On Tuesday morning Pistis loftily declared, “I looked in the archives and I find no image with that time stamp. Also we don’t typically post completely cloudy images at all, let alone with temperatures. This image appears to be manufactured for someone’s entertainment.”
Later he went on to own up to the problem, but not before implying at various times that the data is a) trustworthy b) not trustworthy c) placed online by hand with verification and d) posted online automatically with no human intervention.
This was the final NOAA position, which is absurd to me:
“NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. “Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.”
OK, so 600F readings will be thrown out, but how do we have any confidence the rest of the readings are OK. Just because they may read in a reasonable range, e.g, 59F, the NOAA is just going to assume those readings are OK?