“This is Not Happening”. Wall Street Journal Super Sure that Evil Scientists are Fudging Data November 4, 2015

It’s not just Miami. Pictures here from recent high tide in Boston.

Wall Street Journal assures us that none of this is happening, its all about fudging the data. Nothing to see here, move along.

Northendwaterfront.com:

Boston’s waterfront saw its highest tide of the year last week, known as “King Tide.” The relative position of the sun and moon created a tide nearly 2 1/2 feet higher than average. Using estimates of recent climate change research, it also showed how the cityscape will look as the average Boston Harbor height around mid-century. The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote a post with more information about this week’s tidal flooding. It emphasizes that king tides are becoming higher, lasting longer and coming inland. The Boston Harbor Association shared the following photos around the area. More of them can be found on Facebook.

Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:

With their latest subpoena to the Obama administration, House Republicans risk descending into a rabbit hole, albeit a useful one. Lamar Smith, the Texas GOPer who runs the House science and technology committee, has been seeking, voluntarily and then not so voluntarily, emails and other internal communications related to a study released earlier this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The study, by adjusting upward temperature readings from certain ocean buoys to match shipboard measurements, eliminated the “pause” in global warming seen in most temperature studies over the past 15 years. Let’s just say, without prejudging the case, gut instinct has always indicated that, if there’s a major global warming scandal to be discovered anywhere, it will be found in the temperature record simply because the records are subject to so much opaque statistical manipulation. But even if no scandal is found, it’s past time for politicians and the public to understand the nature of these records and the conditions under which they are manufactured.



And, when all is said and done, it’s still not clear that assigning an “average” temperature for the planet for a year is a meaningful way to capture climate change. Or that claims to detect differences from one year to the next of 2/100ths of a degree are anything but exercises in false precision.

Note to Jenkins. One very reliable indicator of planetary warming is sea level rise.

Perhaps you can reassure Bostonians that it’s all being fudged.