HOW TO SPOT A CLIMATE FRAUD !!

Journalist Tony Thomas says of the greatest physicists developed a test for honest science. Warmists fail it.  Stating that 2016 was the ''Hottest Year'' their gross dishonesty was revealed regarding the actual GLOBAL TEMPERATURE: THE PAUSE NEVER WENT AWAY. 

Tony Thomas writes:

The trouble with mainstream climate scientists is that they’re third-rate scientists, and the reason they’re third-rate is that they’re dishonest. My authority for this statement is physicist Richard Feynman, (photo below) who has been dead for 29 years but was ranked by his peers as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time. Feynman set out the parameters for honest science in general, and I’ve never yet seen a mainstream climate scientist live up to Feynman’s honesty test.

Thomas quotes Feynman explaining the principles of his test, and adds:

There must now be tens of thousands of peer reviewed mainstream studies relying on the output of temperature computer-modelling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the 5th IPCC report of 2013, each such study, on Feynman’s honesty test, should include in the preamble that the 5th report noted [1] that 111 of 114 such model runs over-estimated actual temperatures from 1998-2012 — and they’re still over-estimating for 2012-2016, as demonstrated by John Christy’s satellite graphs provide in Congressional testimony last March.

Another example:

Another great Feynman-test fail is all this science-y stuff about hottest year ever. Surface based records (that have been ruthlessly adjusted by lowering the early-year temperature data) may show recent hottest years, but the 38-year satellite records don’t – at best the 2016 peak was within the margin of error relative to 2015. How can any honest scientist (on Feynman’s definition) fail to mention the awkward satellite data when assessing hottest years?

REALITY CHECK: A particularly strong El Nino event contributed about 0.2C to the annual average for 2016. This means that without the El Nino 2016 would have had a global temperature of 0.57+/- 0.1°C which is the same as 2014 and within the errors of 2010 (0.56) and 2005 (0.54). It would also have been in the 95% confidence range of 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003 and 2002. In other words without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.

The Way I See It........what is fascinating about his common-sense tenets of scientific honesty is that today they are forgotten, ignored, corrupted and trampled upon by supposed scientists  in all fields playing ‘publish or perish’ and ‘get that grant’.  The climate scientists are particularly bad because the stakes in grants, influence and reputation are now so high. When the Climate Council’s CEO Amanda McKenzie talks about “carbon pollution”, why don’t the scientists on her board (Flannery, Hughes, Steffen, Bambrick) correct her and say carbon dioxide (not “carbon”) is  a plant food essential to life on earth, not “pollution”?  That’s what Feynman surely would want.