The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal everEnvironmental | 207028 hits | Feb 09 10:54 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warmingCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
But one other member here seems to believe the Daily Mail is the only mainstream newspaper that dares to speak against the proclamations of the high priests of the Warmist faith.
Very well, here's a new and full article from The Telegraph on the specific problem of manipulated data. It is supported by recently revealed evidence.
Do we have to go through this every year?
. . .
Doing so caused a bit of a flashback�to January 2013, specifically. That was the last time that the previous year had been declared the warmest on record, an event that apparently prompts some people to question whether we can trust the temperature records at all.
The culprit that time was Fox News, but the issue was the same: the raw data from temperature measurements around the world aren't just dumped into global temperature reconstructions as-is. Instead, they're processed first. To the more conspiracy minded, you can replace "processed" with "fraudulently manipulated to make it look warmer."
Why do they have to be processed at all? Because almost none of the records are continuous. Weather stations have moved, they've changed the time of day where the temperature-of-record is taken, and they've replaced old thermometers with more modern equipment. All of these events create discontinuities in the record of each location, and the processing is used to get things into alignment, creating a single, unified record.
Does it work? The team behind the Berkeley Earth project performed a different analysis in which they didn't process to create a single record and instead treated the discontinuities as breaks that defined separate temperature records. Their results were indistinguishable from the normal analysis.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/te ... content%29
In any case the Telegraph article already answered your tired old question of "why look at the man behind the curtain, when there's nothing to see here?"
It's in the last paragraph.
Oh, I know, Ars Technica...
What Elephant?
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
The Berkeley Earth group included prominent skeptics, such as Judith Curry. Anthony Watts said:
But, of course, once the results came in, the New York Times wrote:
Yes pushers of the warmist catastrophe cult at Ars Technica we have to keep noticing the actual evidence as it continues to come out.
...
Oh, I know, Ars Technica...
Ad Hominem.
I don't think Richard Muller is a warmist pusher. OIr wasn't at teh time Berkely Earth conducted thier analysis.
I remember when the BEST project was coming out and in spite of what you posted their from Watts there was some skepticism from the skeptics on him. Specifically they were skeptical about Muller's characterization of himself as a skeptic. That's the way I remember it anyway.
I notice you mention how Judith Curry (luke warmer, not skeptic) was part of the BEST project. You forgot to mention how she refused to allow her name to be put on the report.
Her beef was she believed Muller was jumping the gun with his claims about having proven attribution. Meaning he claimed he'd shown it was all about the CO2. She didn't believe BEST showed that.
You can find a much more nuanced report on what Muller's all about from her here:
The Irresistable Story of Richard Muller
Ad Hominem.
Contrary to Zip's sneaky insinuation I never claimed Richard Muller was a "warmist pusher".
What I claimed was -
just as they claimed...
To Ars Technica, you see, Fox was nothing more than "a culprit". They also attempted to marginalize new evidence from other sources with cheap, insulting snark.
That's the problem when you start throwing the ad hominem tag around. Finding the innocent.
Counter attack is not attack. If you don't want your opinionators attacked, don't use the ones that initiate such attacks.
Zip, I think I said a long time ago that my core complaint these days is that there's been so much fraud involved with climate politics (we don't need to call it 'science' anymore, do we?) that any actual science is lost in the din of politics.
lol.
Posting in a Nutter thread.
Tinfoil Hats.
Zip, I think I said a long time ago that my core complaint these days is that there's been so much fraud involved with climate politics (we don't need to call it 'science' anymore, do we?) that any actual science is lost in the din of politics.
I don't think the Berkely Earth project was government funded.
Why? Does the exception prove the rule when the result is politically correct, or something?
As I understand it, that particular little project was mostly privately funded by NGOs and such. Even the Koch brothers bucked up.
http://berkeleyearth.org/funders
However, the last estimate I remember seeing for government funding of research in America was 80 billion dollars. That was a couple years ago, but still - 1 million for BEST to 80 billion for the rest; big difference.
What's your point though? BEST was a tiny data point in the history of the climate debate. Most people haven't even heard of it.
What's with this desperate need to make it all about BEST all of a sudden?
Is this the first time you've heard of it, and you find it spectacular or something? Careful there. If you really want to get into it there's some surprises coming.
Why? Does the exception prove the rule when the result is politically correct, or something?
As I understand it, that particular little project was mostly privately funded by NGOs and such. Even the Koch brothers bucked up.
http://berkeleyearth.org/funders
However, the last estimate I remember seeing for government funding of research in America was 80 billion dollars. That was a couple years ago, but still - 1 million for BEST to 80 billion for the rest; big difference.
What's your point though? BEST was a tiny data point in the history of the climate debate. Most people haven't even heard of it.
What's with this desperate need to make it all about BEST all of a sudden?
Is this the first time you've heard of it, and you find it spectacular or something? Careful there. If you really want to get into it there's some surprises coming.
The point is your cartoon showed the science coming from government grants. In this case, the research was funded privately.
It's not all about BEST, it's just a good counter-example to this bit about everyone fudging the numbers. It's good because according one of the lead authors, he wasn't expecting to agree with NASA/NOAA.