Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday February 09 2015, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the heated-discussion dept.

The Telegraph reports "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

From the article:

"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."

It seems that the norm in science may well be to cherry pick the results, but the story points to evidence that some climate data may have been falsified to fit the theory.

Sure, it's clickbait, but we've recently discussed cases where science and scientific consensus has gotten it so very wrong. Can we trust the science if we can't trust the data?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 09 2015, @10:30PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 09 2015, @10:30PM (#142888) Homepage Journal

    Erm, so would that be defending accurate and truthful measurements or the scientists who've allegedly been pulling numbers out of their asses to match their predictions? Which is science to you? I know I'm not going to believe a fucking word they say until a skeptic has gone over the readings from non-urban centers and verified that they match what they've been using for calculations showing warming.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=3, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @10:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @10:49PM (#142903)

    a skeptic

    A skeptic or denialist? A lot of people seem to think that denialists are skeptics. I don't know that I've ever seen an actual skeptic when it comes to global warming, just denialists trying to hide behind the word "skeptic"; skeptics simply want more data and can be convinced once enough is collected, rather than ignoring that the data exists or attacking the people who gather it with ad hominems.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:07PM (#142910)

      Here's one guy who fits your definition of skeptic: Richard Muller [businessinsider.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:08PM (#142911)

      "A skeptic or denialist? A lot of people seem to think that denialists are skeptics. I don't know that I've ever seen an actual skeptic when it comes to global warming, just denialists trying to hide behind the word "skeptic"; skeptics simply want more data and can be convinced once enough is collected, rather than ignoring that the data exists or attacking the people who gather it with ad hominems."

      Using your definitions, the two groups are indistinguishable and indivisible.

      They could theoretically diverge into two separate groups at some point in the future, if the warmers started doing science.

      Not holding my breath on that one though.

  • (Score: 3) by buswolley on Monday February 09 2015, @11:12PM

    by buswolley (848) on Monday February 09 2015, @11:12PM (#142912)

    No. Just a defense in the scientific method and not believing in a pervasive conspiracy without substantial evidence.

    --
    subicular junctures
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by LancePodstrong on Tuesday February 10 2015, @01:57AM

    by LancePodstrong (5029) on Tuesday February 10 2015, @01:57AM (#142957)
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer/ [arstechnica.com]

    Last week, a project called Berkeley Earth released drafts of its findings. The project was started by a physicist, Richard Muller, who had previously expressed doubts about the mathematical rigor of climate science; it received funding from a variety of sources, including the Department of Energy and foundations set up by Bill Gates and the Koch brothers. The Berkeley Earth team set out to analyze records of the Earth's surface temperatures to answer questions about the trajectory of the planet's recent warming that had been raised by skeptics and contrarians. To a very large degree, it discovered that climatologists had been doing a pretty good job after all.
    ...
    Recording stations were moved, their surroundings urbanized, and researchers performed adjustments or dropped some stations entirely in order to compensate. Various parties hostile to the findings of climate science have raised questions about this process. Have the scientists really compensated for urbanization? Was the trajectory of the modern warming really as extreme as the temperature records were showing?