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?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 09 2015, @10:30PM
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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @10:49PM
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
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
"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
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