Dutch Climate ‘Experts’ Can’t be Bothered to Explain Fake Data
Dutch science journalist exposes national government ‘experts’ rigging climate data to make modern climate appear warmer than the past.
“Heat waves are now much more common than a century ago.” That claim made the Dutch 8 o’clock News in the warm summer of 2018, as elsewhere in Europe.
Yes, all well and good, thought Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok, but that story only applies after KNMI in 2016 drastically correcting old temperature measurements.
Crok decided it was time to find out exactly how the KNMI came to those corrections, with three men (Frans Dijkstra, Jan Ruis and Rob de Vos) joining the team and eight months later they have published their findings in a voluminous report with the Tintin-sounding title: The Riddle of the Lost Heat Waves’ (source: café Weltschmerz).
n 2016, the KNMI corrected temperature measurement data from the period 1901-1951, after the measurement setup in the Bilt was changed in 1951. De Bilt is an extra important measurement setup because the Dutch heat waves are determined on the basis of this. And that is again important in the climate debate because that data is used by KNMI and third parties for statements about climate changes.
We have taken major policy measures precisely for climate change. We’re on top of it. On the day on which this interview took place, the planning office announced that the climate target in CO2 reduction with the current cabinet plans is unlikely to be achieved and subsequently Rutte said he would come forward with proposals for new policy. The media rightly reports on it extensively, but Crok’s report has not received any attention.
Strange? Maybe not. The climate debate is so polarized between climate alarmists and deniers that a discussion about substantiation is no longer desirable for many people. I do not want to “deny” but here is with retroactive work on existing substantiation.
In the introduction to the report, the writers give a suggestion how we can deal with this in a scientific way by quoting the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW) who on January 15, 2018 suggested that repeating experiments should become common .
It is what the writers of this report have tried to do and what Marcel Crok came to tell in this interview: the working method of the KNMI was critically reviewed and found to be insufficient.
Monday evening I contacted the KNMI to ask what they thought of the report? Spokesperson Cees Molenaars told me that Crok’s report is not taken seriously and that it would be too much effort for Crok to serve him in the reply.
I don’t want to “bother”, but without dialogue there is no (climate) debate and without controllability there is no science. The KNMI reports to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Perhaps someone can ask the minister what they think about this?
Marcel Crok: in 2004 questioned the “hockey stick graph” that forms the basis of the Kyoto protocol, which was agreed in 1997 to emit fewer greenhouse gases worldwide. He received a journalistic incentive prize for that work. Since then, he has been closely following climate and policy developments. He published the book “the state of the climate” in 2010 and made the website climategate.nl, after the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
More at potkaars.nl/blog
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.