This week there has been a procession of climate errors coming to light. We have the melting Himalayan glaciers which didn't melt now growing already, Arctic ice crossing the limit of positive growth before someone was caught altering the data at the last minute, plus a new study which suggests the reason the Arctic ice had been showing a decline were the measuring equipment had been drifting into open sea while the ice remained pretty much the same, akin to David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear, and another list of errors in James Hansen's graphs, all within a week.
It is basically asking the question how many gross and glaring errors, on top of blatant alterations which have been caught are the indication of a genuine scientific issue? I've never come across any other since Piltdown Man which has raised so much controversy within the profession (I don't think Piltdown Man did actually, it was accepted by consensus and then discredited all in one go decades later, lesson to be learnt there) and was so rough it kept turning up greater and greater inconsistencies of all types and levels. If your bank or doctor worked with so many breaches of standards you'd change wouldn't you? How many mistakes would you allow them to make before you lost confidence and decided to pack them in? For me I'd just go back to my own jobs and those who have worked for myself and my family.
I've done a year studying accounting before switching, and have done little bits ever since as you don't need to be qualified unlike many other professions as you get the work signed off after doing it by someone who is. Accounting is probably the easiest area to pick up errors, but they are still made, and believe it or not the size is not actually such an element of them, as a massive one can just as easily get through as a few small ones. But the point being that the means are extremely simple using balance sheets to reveal them. Extend that to other professions, science, medicine, law and the like. The deeper you get into them the more of a professional you would need to be to pick up errors. I studied law and when a friend has had bad advice it can often be clear to us and not to anyone else simply as it's what we've had to learn.
The climate is hard to measure but fairly simple to read when measurements are made. I'd say it's fairly close to accounting in that sense, except you're dealing with estimates and future budgeting, complex income statements etc which are many times beyond even the most complicated areas of accounting, but nonetheless able to go through the balance sheet test. Basically it should not be possible to make most of the errors at all. If science or a builder or tailor measured a glacier or an iceberg you'd actually expect them to get it right, especially if you were making a coat for it or more so a bridge to take its weight. I've seen the result of miscalculations in architecture, where a suspended walkway collapsed killing a number of people as the equations hadn't been done properly.
If a builder makes an error, or the architect instructing them, people can die, like the bridge over the river in Ohio which did almost exactly the same thing some years ago. They are wise after the event by working out why the structures failed, but too late for the victims. And you wouldn't employ the firm again I'd hope. The same goes for a misdiagnosis or botched operation. The glacier situation alone is no different to amputating the wrong leg, but the scientists don't ruin anyone's life directly with their errors, and apparently for 99% of the world neither their credibility.
Psychologically what exactly puts these mavens above all others? Is it because they don't directly injure or maim anyone when they stuff up, combined with the almost unanimous support by politicians worldwide? The sheer credibility of the believers who, like a parent, excuse their children of every crime and misdeed as they appear to offer climatologists unconditional love and trust, and however many people the Kray twins killed they were always good to their mother who loved them through it all.
So with a record of not just errors but such which would get your banker, accountant, architect, builder, doctor and especially an airline pilot sacked and possibly imprisoned for gross negligence (a crime at certain levels) climatologists are excused every single one as 'it doesn't affect the science'. Hold on, it IS the science! The whole theory relies on observation and when those observations become wrong, then how much of an error margin should people accept (above and beyond the professions mentioned) before the same standards everyone else is kept to are upheld? It's like some sort of Mafia-like immunity, in fact I'd go one step further and say not even 'like'. That or nearly everyone has been hypnotised, much like Paul McKenna tells people they can't count the number 7. But hypnotism always wears off on its own yet this has lasted decades, in the face of more and more new and incredibly wrong data. That really takes some doing.