- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:expat_panama said:For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming.
No, it didn't. Even if every single accusation had been correct, it would have been a drop in a bucket; it wouldn't change the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players. However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as every major investigation has concluded."Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.
It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity...
...the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!
Oh, you'd never heard of it? I bet you've heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake "Pausebuster" data...
...Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013...
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:
No, it didn't. Even if every single accusation had been correct, it would have been a drop in a bucket; it wouldn't change the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players. However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as every major investigation has concluded.
We'd heard of it. By February 7th, Bates' story was very different from the original hyped-up Daily Mail headline and what right-wing circles were (and still are) promoting and believing. Perhaps your blogger didn't hear that fact, or has just chosen to ignore it?
"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
No he didn't. In his Nobel lecture in December 2007 - after a summer with the lowest-ever recorded extent of Arctic sea ice, though it's declined further since then - he cited the earliest estimates of its summer disappearance from two papers: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."
7 years from 2007 would be the summer of 2014. This is absolutely basic, 1st grade stuff. But in 2012 the sea ice extent was almost one million square kilometers lower than the previous record low (~4.2 million in 2007, ~3.4 million in 2012), and so - predictably - in 2013 there were any number of headlines in right-wing rags about the "increase" of sea ice extent. (It was ~5 million sq. km in the summer of 2013, compared to ~6.4 million for the 1980-2010 median.) Not surprisingly, it seems that all the propagandists and pundits who couldn't be bothered to do some very very basic fact-checking and mathematics also decided that an extra year was far too long to wait before bringing out their falsehoods and mocking of Gore.
Even if the scientific consensus were not enough to go on, stuff like this - the utter disregard for context, nuance, accuracy or honesty in the 'sceptical' blogosphere - would be a pretty compelling basis on which to conclude that the contrarians have basically nothing to say that's worth listening to. Presumably if there were good points to be made, they would make them. Instead 90% of what we see on this forum are unsubstantiated accusations, conspiracy theories, shaky understanding of even quite basic information, half-truths and sometimes outright lies. There are a couple of 'sceptics' here capable of holding an intelligent discussion, but even they rarely if ever call out all the garbage for what it is.
Hello, and welcome to DP!from: Blog: Global warming: Fake news becomes no news
Daniel G. Jones March 14, 2017
For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming. Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers' emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren't quite on the up-and-up, science-wise. Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests. "Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.
It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity...
...the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!
Oh, you'd never heard of it? I bet you've heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake "Pausebuster" data...
...Al Gore adviser, predicted that by 1995, the greenhouse effect would be "desolating...
...UNEP warned that by 2010, some 50 million "climate refugees" would be fleeing low-lying Caribbean and Pacific islands...
...Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--and somehow all this never stops AGW advocates from maintaining that the consensus is 99.99%, the data are solid, and their climate models are always right.
The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow —
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably
supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
Thanks,
mike
More than a whiff of desperation in your post, Mith ... especially that last paragraph. But defending Al Gore was a bridge too far.
Funny stuffand this:
Is it a catastrophic disaster in the making that requires me to do exactlyWhich it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all
confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species
zones of habitation
None of that requires me to drastically change my life style.Even if every single accusation had been correct ... it wouldn't change
the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline
of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the
increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it
wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite
measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea
ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players.
Wikipedia? You might as well quote Truth Out, or Mother Jones, or Skeptical Science etc.However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the
sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as
every major investigation has concluded.
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware....Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it...
Absolutely, it taints the entire scientific process and there's no hiding it; the BBC recently posted this:...they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself...
Hello, and welcome to DP!
It would be easy to look at the climate gate emails and say things were not on the up and up related to the
temperature records, and there could be some truth to that.
The real problem with the climate gate emails is actually more dangerous.
The emails represent a group of authoritarian figures who place a political agenda above science.
By showing they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself to advance their cause.
The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,
but in addition must be close to 3C. Papers that did not follow this were to be excluded from publication.
If a paper somehow made it into a journal, that journal should be punished,
Dont worry. Now that there is someone NOT a democrat in the WH, leftists will be starting up their Global Warming poutrage soon enough. They just have to wait til they can be reasonably sure their protests dont get snowed out...then they will be back in full force.
...The fact that you're making a serious claim means need to say which measurements you're talking about. What happens when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.
If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree.
The fact that you're making a serious claim means need to say which measurements you're talking about. What happens when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
The emails represent a group of authoritarian figures who place a political agenda above science.
By showing they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself to advance their cause.
The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,
but in addition must be close to 3C. Papers that did not follow this were to be excluded from publication.
If a paper somehow made it into a journal, that journal should be punished,
...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it...
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.
If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend... ...when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
Please, what part of 'YES' do you not understand?If you had even bothered to ... ...this is the kind of ridiculous 'logic'...
Please, what part of 'YES' do you not understand?
You're seeing something and I am not seeing it and I'm telling you that what I see is not what I want to look at. I want to look at what you are looking at. You say you have "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." so please share one of the datasets here so we can plot the numbers and agree together.
There is a difference between not supporting a Journal with sloppy practices,If a paper has little or no scientific merit, reviewers should exclude it from publication. Of course anyone can start a "peer-reviewed journal," so if journal does frequently publish papers with little or no scientific merit, the scientific community has every right and arguably responsibility to take note of the low standards of that journal.
Are you honestly suggesting that they have some kind of obligation to keep endorsing any given journal no matter how low and unscientific its standards become? And that's supposed to uphold the scientific process? I don't geddit :doh
As I've already pointed out, the reviews of the emails' content and context have all cleared the people involved of any fraud, scientific misconduct or behaviour outside the norms of their fields. They did note a "culture of non-disclosure" at the University of East Anglia and recommend institutional reforms to help correct that; but while that's a matter of concern for scientific transparency, it did not change the accuracy or validity of the research done, and as these were more institutional than individual shortcomings even Phil Jones (who was suspended during the investigations) was later reinstated. Similarly across the pond, Penn State's investigations into Michael Mann resulted only in glowing endorsements of his scientific work and integrity.
March 2010, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report:
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.
In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. . . .
We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
April 2010, Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
July 2010, The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y2wJFq-ZulY/TbnvvHHXAPI/AAAAAAAABgU/Sm7tkfa37aw/s1600/FrenchNationalSoccerTeam-[/QUOTE]
You're using political and economic immigration for climate immigration? Interesting. That aside, I think many accept that we've warmed up some, we did recently have a cooling period called the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1300-1850.
Wikipedia? You might as well quote Truth Out, or Mother Jones, or Skeptical Science etc.
Here's the link to the let's remove the 1940s blip email from Phil Jones:
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
I really don't give a flying YouKnowWhat what every major investigation has
concluded when I can read the actual stuff for myself.
I mean really, are you going to tell me Phil Jones didn't write that or it
doesn't mean what it looks like it means?
You're using political and economic immigration for climate immigration? Interesting. That aside, I think many accept that we've warmed up some, we did recently have a cooling period called the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1300-1850.
There is a difference between not supporting a Journal with sloppy practices,
and encouraging others to not work with the journal because you think they
publish work that harms your political message.
If the work passes peer review, it is qualified, if it is not then there is a problem with the peer review process.
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.
If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree.
--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
It was a joke, based on the amusing phenomenon of a traditionally and still predominantly white country having an all-black soccer team. The humorous implication is that they got darker skin because of a hotter climate :doh
Don't blame me if you don't like it, I saw it elsewhere a while back and got a giggle from it - so really I'm the victim here!
Only their own words suggest that they were trying to subvert the peer reviewed process.It was a joke, based on the amusing phenomenon of a traditionally and still predominantly white country having an all-black soccer team. The humorous implication is that they got darker skin because of a hotter climate :doh
Don't blame me if you don't like it, I saw it elsewhere a while back and got a giggle from it - so really I'm the victim here!
There undoubtedly is room for improvement in many if not most journals' peer review process and science in general: Double-blind reviewing, keeping accessible records of reviewers' comments for or against acceptance, and publicly-funded archives of 'unsuccessful' experiment results are three ideas I've seen which would probably be worth implementing. But journals are generally privately-owned and respond to the needs of their main clients, not you or I. Thus, as I said, if there's a particularly egregious problem with any given journal's practices, scientists in the relevant field/s are among the best-placed folk to push for improvement.
You have not provided a single jot of evidence that this had anything to do with a political agenda, whereas I have shown that according to the various panels and committees reviewing the emails, "the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process," "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" and so on.
They did not want certain papers to become peer-reviewed, so they would not have to address them in the next IPCC report.“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow —
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?