Nobody would want to see our world damaged by irresponsible human activity. So when claims of impending doom are accompanied by science claims that turn out to be exaggerated, that leads to strong disappointment and it's often the experts who are blamed. This has been endemic to the debate of what is now called “climate change.”
When skeptics spotted some large discrepancies in published climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), they were primed by decades of resisting climate alarmist activism and were ready to pounce. After all those who are supposed to be producing objective, unbiased scientific evidence were seemingly caught massaging the data to generate the result their political paymasters wanted.
A Breitbart article reported that NOAA-published data appeared to be ‘fiddled' to exaggerate a global warming trend.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.
A scientist's job is to ask questions and to generate findings relevant to the questions and uncorrupted by biases. This is just what NOAA was doing, but the reported data were modified to account for changes in sampling methodology.
NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
It's no wonder the situation gave the impression that NOAA was marching to the orders of the environmental extremists on the lookout for another way the central government can control business firms and people's lives.
Responsible science has generated benefits that cannot be counted. Our lives have been enriched by the application of science. But it must be conducted objectively and free of political influence.
In other words, science should contribute to our understanding of the world. When that breaks down and are politics are directing the results of scientific inquiry, you have the mess we see with the climate change debate.
Once again, the answer is to get government out of another area of our lives.