The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

[sean miguel]

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

By Christopher Booker

10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yeah, the warmists/changists are so eager to prove this or have the masses to accept it as fact that they are undermining their credibility with these shenanigans.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I love it when psuedo science is exposed.

 

[Rattrap]

You have to do much better than Christopher Booker citing a blog. This guy believes in intelligent design.

Not compelling.

Here's a rebuttal, anyway: http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html

 

[xfire]

You have to do much better than Christopher Booker citing a blog. This guy believes in intelligent design.

Not compelling.

Here's a rebuttal, anyway: http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html

I'll give the guy credit for being out in front of the story, though I'm not sure how much of a story is actually there. Anyway, some data diddling in South America, not sure that's enough of an indictment to throw the entire scientific community under the bus.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I don't know who is right. BS emails and things like this certainly don't help make their case whether someone believes in intelligent design or not. And a consortium of scientists coming from an ideology from ether side of the spectrum aren't going to convince me either. I don't care if it is Dr. Tyson or who says it because they aren't exactly unbiased. Ever watch the new Cosmos? Interesting as hell but it is extremely biased in their presentations.. There are scientific absolutes that we all can accept. Global warming/climate change aren't there yet.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Yeah, 'cause a dude who can't even do his homework correctly on a blog is so much more trustworthy than the thousands and thousands of scientists he accuses of a conspiracy.
And after some digging I noticed that Christopher Brooker isn't the sharpest tool in the toolbox either.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yeah, 'cause a dude who can't even do his homework correctly on a blog is so much more trustworthy than the thousands and thousands of scientists he accuses of a conspiracy.
And after some digging I noticed that Christopher Brooker isn't the sharpest tool in the toolbox either.

There is just something about dissenting opinion that scientists just don't like, now do they. There are plenty more that are not kooks that feel the same way. I always find it interesting that in this issue mainly because the warmists cannot furnish concrete evidence that they resort to attacking the dissenters. It would seem to me that scientists of all people would be driven to examine all data not just that which they like and discredit it . Then again I guess their minds don't work that way or they would pursue maybe, say, a legal career?

We got the memo. If you don't agree with a somewhat lacking data driven theory that is mainly based on an ideology you are a knuckle dragging, science denying yokel. Now excuse me while I go and ask some forensic experts that I know what their conclusions are on the 30 year old gal that was pulled out of the river 2 weeks ago. Nobody usually seems to dispute their findings and they are a no nonsense bunch that totally emerge themselves in science and are pretty adept (through science) at shutting people up that voice skepticism. The climatology crowd should follow their lead. Sounds like to me that solid science should be able to shut up these climate change denials pretty darn fast or at least make it abundantly clear that they are nut jobs to everyone else.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Somebody please explain to me why scientists are worth our trust, when their theories are not supported by rock solid evidence. Are we talking about a new sort of religious faith here? Thousands and thousands of well erudite pedophile teachers around the world would like to convince us that touching children is ok, but i doubt it that that makes them right. Yes the paragon is forced to say the least, but climate change caused by humans lifestyle is so controversial and unproven that ignites harsh debates all around the globe. It's funny how religious faith is ridiculed by scientists and atheists, but then the theory of a scientist sponsored by political and economical lobbies must be the law. According to thousands of scientists female orgasm and g-spot don't exist, for almost 40 years they have poisoned half of the western world with margarine in place of olive oil, US water supplies are still contaminated with methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether which scientists sold us as the end of gasoline pollution, 100 billions dollars is the cost of the y2k bug due to scientists incompetence. Just because a scientist say so, it does not make him right. Ask yourself who pay these scientists and who benefits from their conjectural theories.

 

[Johan]

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

By Christopher Booker

Christopher Booker, the man who wrote an article claiming Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain, which caused the Daily Telegraph an apology and 6 figures legal fees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships

Who could trust such a poor excuse for a journalist ?

 

[Rattrap]

I always find it interesting that in this issue mainly because the warmists cannot furnish concrete evidence that they resort to attacking the dissenters.

I always find it interesting that said evidence is in fact out there, for everyone to read (as is reed), but most 'skeptics' rather be 'read' (as in red) it through biased filters like Christopher Brooker.

It would seem to me that scientists of all people would be driven to examine all data not just that which they like and discredit it .
Then again I guess their minds don't work that way or they would pursue maybe, say, a legal career?

...I had a rather mean point here, but in hindsight it's not constructive. I'll just say: don't get full of yourself when plenty of examples on this board alone exists to deflate that idea.

Sounds like to me that solid science should be able to shut up these climate change denials pretty darn fast or at least make it abundantly clear that they are nut jobs to everyone else.

If people were at all even half reasonable enough that "solid science should be able to shut up these...denials*", half of the debates we have wouldn't be happening, our politicians would be virtual paragons compared to what we have now, and the world would be a better place.

I'm not entirely joking.

Somebody please explain to me why scientists are worth our trust, when their theories are not supported by rock solid evidence.

Please define 'rock solid'.

Are we talking about a new sort of religious faith here?

If there were no evidence, sure. But there is. So...

...climate change caused by humans lifestyle is so controversial and unproven that ignites harsh debates all around the globe.

Nowhere else is it 'debated' like in the US.

Just because a scientist say so, it does not make him right.

Absolutely. Which is why the evidence gets published in reports.

Ask yourself who pay these scientists and who benefits from their conjectural theories.

Yes, please follow the money. Please.



* You can insert whatever you like in front of 'denial'. Evolution's always a fun one, for example. Yet people still go on...

 

[Johan]

* You can insert whatever you like in front of 'denial'. Evolution's always a fun one, for example. Yet people still go on...

Actually in addition to being a globam-warming denier, Christopher Booker is also a evolution denier...

 

[GodsEmbryo]

There is just something about dissenting opinion that scientists just don't like, now do they. There are plenty more that are not kooks that feel the same way. I always find it interesting that in this issue mainly because the warmists cannot furnish concrete evidence that they resort to attacking the dissenters. It would seem to me that scientists of all people would be driven to examine all data not just that which they like and discredit it . Then again I guess their minds don't work that way or they would pursue maybe, say, a legal career?

We got the memo. If you don't agree with a somewhat lacking data driven theory that is mainly based on an ideology you are a knuckle dragging, science denying yokel. Now excuse me while I go and ask some forensic experts that I know what their conclusions are on the 30 year old gal that was pulled out of the river 2 weeks ago. Nobody usually seems to dispute their findings and they are a no nonsense bunch that totally emerge themselves in science and are pretty adept (through science) at shutting people up that voice skepticism. The climatology crowd should follow their lead. Sounds like to me that solid science should be able to shut up these climate change denials pretty darn fast or at least make it abundantly clear that they are nut jobs to everyone else.

That's not even the issue here. Science is driven by dissent, whether scientists like the data or not. Any scientist would be glad to come up with a new groundbreaking theory or new findings for some problem, and any other scientist would be glad to disprove it. That's why there is something like tests, experiments, peer review. And that's what I'm missing here.

Any so called scientific information that is only shared through blogs sounds suspicious. If he was certain of his findings he would make all his data available for peer review to eliminate any doubt. Who has checked his data and findings? As far as I know no one. I couldn't find any information on Paul Homewood's expertise and knowledge, another reason to be suspicious. After some googling I found out that climatologists since the beginning of all their measurements have always adjusted raw temperature records to allow for changes in type of intruments, changes in time, settings, etc. Where in this article has he shown that each adjustment was inappropriate or justified? Nowhere. And how did this tampering with temperatures occur, on a global scale, starting from the 19th century? Yeah... So excuse me for taking this with a serious grain of salt.

I always find it interesting that in this issue mainly because the warmists cannot furnish concrete evidence that they resort to attacking the dissenters.

Just a question though... Why is it that people who aren't convinced there is something like global warming, won't take scientists seriously. But when a guy like this runs along with poor data, incomplete research, and a poor record of reliability (google it), they do take it seriously? Sure, there isn't a 100% proof, only a consensus. But does that mean they are attacking dissenters just because? Or because dissenters can't furnish concrete evidence themselves?

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Absolutely. Which is why the evidence gets published in reports.

Please, define evidence. 130 years of data mining cannot produce any evidence of climate change on a millions of years scale. Not even on a 100k years scale. Not even on a 10k scale, not even on a 1000 scale.

And yes, let's follow the money: the so called "green" energy and recycling industries which should save us from the climate change catastrophe move more money, attract more investments and employ more people than the oil sands industry, already. Sorry if i'm a bit skeptical about theories (not evidence) by scientists financed and sponsored by a multi-trillion dollars industry. And note well: i'm not indifferent to those theories, i'm just skeptical; since instead of climate change it was called global warming. The issue is not climate change or global warming or global cooling, because those have always existed. The issue is: are they caused by human lifestyle/behavior or are they natural cycles? Assuming that data mining has been correct and not altered, you cannot prove that the change is caused by humans since you have no records at all before 1880.

I go to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change website and on their page where they should explain ignorant people like me climate change and how badly men are affecting it and i read:

"Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".
Likely?? Like in it might be true? Seriously?
I do a search for likely on that page and it appears 16, i said SIXTEEN times. No wonder they are on the Google top ten for "climate change, likely".
I'm sorry, but likely and evidence don't walk hand in hand in my book.

 

[Jack Davenport]

That's not even the issue here. Science is driven by dissent, whether scientists like the data or not. Any scientist would be glad to come up with a new groundbreaking theory or new findings for some problem, and any other scientist would be glad to disprove it. That's why there is something like tests, experiments, peer review. And that's what I'm missing here.

Any so called scientific information that is only shared through blogs sounds suspicious. If he was certain of his findings he would make all his data available for peer review to eliminate any doubt. Who has checked his data and findings? As far as I know no one. I couldn't find any information on Paul Homewood's expertise and knowledge, another reason to be suspicious. After some googling I found out that climatologists since the beginning of all their measurements have always adjusted raw temperature records to allow for changes in type of intruments, changes in time, settings, etc. Where in this article has he shown that each adjustment was inappropriate or justified? Nowhere. And how did this tampering with temperatures occur, on a global scale, starting from the 19th century? Yeah... So excuse me for taking this with a serious grain of salt.

The problem that I have with the theory of climate change is that we are implementing drastic regulations and controls based upon a theory. If they would move to a slower progression to match the data they have now I wouldn't have a problem with it. At this point the cure is far worse than the disease. If climate change is such a threat to mankind and the planet then there should be at least 4 summits a year addressing the problem and should include every credible scientist/climatologist that the world has to offer.

Just a question though... Why is it that people who aren't convinced there is something like global warming, won't take scientists seriously. But when a guy like this runs along with poor data, incomplete research, and a poor record of reliability (google it), they do take it seriously? Sure, there isn't a 100% proof, only a consensus. But does that mean they are attacking dissenters just because? Or because dissenters can't furnish concrete evidence themselves?

I am not hawking this guy as a whistle blower. But at the same time there are many credible scientists that don't adhere to this theory. That is why I said there should be one week summit 4 times a year where all of the experts that agree and disagree could produce their findings and have serious debate for the world to see. It looks like the warmists are actually afraid to produce their data for scrutiny. it is either except it or you are in denial.

 

[Johan]

Just a question though... Why is it that people who aren't convinced there is something like global warming, won't take scientists seriously. But when a guy like this runs along with poor data, incomplete research, and a poor record of reliability (google it), they do take it seriously?

Because they got so few data ( 97% of climate science papers agree global warming is man-made ) to back their claims that even incomplete, poor and not reliable datas are welcome.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

I am not hawking this guy as a whistle blower. But at the same time there are many credible scientists that don't adhere to this theory. That is why I said there should be one week summit 4 times a year where all of the experts that agree and disagree could produce their findings and have serious debate for the world to see. It looks like the warmists are actually afraid to produce their data for scrutiny. it is either except it or you are in denial.

Whether people are convinced or not, that would actually be a good idea. Not only for a discussion amongst scientists, but to inform people and even discuss with people what is going on. After all it concerns us all. And there is way to much information we can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[MustBeGood]

Nothing weird here:

Critics will counter and say photoshopped and the scientist are just trying to keep their budgets. Just like the DEA on weed lies.

 

[Jagger69]

A tempest in a teapot. Anyone who thinks man's influence on the environment is inconsequential is a fool.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Of course there are consequences in over farming and the destruction of rain forests. No one can say the loss of topsoil isn't scary. But to say methane and carbon dioxide are harbingers of Armageddon is ludicrous.