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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by anfieldsierra on Monday February 09 2015, @10:39PM

    by anfieldsierra (3609) on Monday February 09 2015, @10:39PM (#142898)

    Which stations?
    1: obscure ones belonging to some department
    2: weather stations belonging to governments, and official meteorological institutes?
    less rage, more info and more trolling please =)

    OK, you want references ?

    Just for starters, how about we start with Paraguay - https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/ [wordpress.com]

    And Bolivia - https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/cooling-the-past-in-bolivia/ [wordpress.com]

    And the rest of the world - https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/temperature-adjustments-around-the-world/ [wordpress.com]

    Or maybe you want some US stations - http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm [rockyhigh66.org]
    Perhaps an analysis of many stations summarised - http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212/ [itia.ntua.gr]

    In each case, the "adjusted temperatures" have served to make the past cooler and the present warmer, thereby artificially creating a pattern of "global warming" far in excess of what was actually measured.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Disagree=2, Total=6
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by moondrake on Monday February 09 2015, @10:58PM

    by moondrake (2658) on Monday February 09 2015, @10:58PM (#142908)

    FYI, the references show claims by certain people that raw data != final data. These people where not scientist, just people interested enough (guess why) to go over a lot of numbers.

    There are lots of reasons why data gets calibrated. The fact that this calibration sometimes goes in the same direction as the effect you get at the end it not a problem per se. However, it does not mean that calibrations can not be wrong, that all depends on why they were done.

    If you read some of your references and many other "denialist" websites, you will also see that they do not find such "warming-induced-by-calibration" (or tampering, if you prefer) for all stations, or for all time periods even (they are careful to show you only ranges of the whole dataset in some cases, watch those time-axes!).

    I personally find it hard to be believe that a some people in rural Paraguay in the 60's would want to affect the global averages by changing some numbers. It is far more likely they had reasons for adjusting the numbers (new equipment, influence of local environment, etc etc). That is not to say that calibration can not be done wrongly, and who knows, the data in question may really be bad.

    Unfortunately, in the past, and in remote areas, it was not always carefully documented why and how exactly the data was adjusted. This is a lot better now (and we can thank the denialist for that), but you cannot do much about all these old numbers.

    Like others, I put more faith into my colleagues than into some random blogger who thinks there is a problem. Unlike some people think, there is not actually much of a reason to say warming happens when it does not, whereas there are clear financial and economic reasons to claim there is no warming (which is why google shows a shit ton of news articles from the usual suspect press agencies all claiming scientist are somehow in a conspiracy to kill the world economy because then they..ehh..whatever. No really, you just go ahead and trust the 1% instead).

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mrchew1982 on Tuesday February 10 2015, @02:48AM

      by mrchew1982 (3565) on Tuesday February 10 2015, @02:48AM (#142967)

      I agree with 99% of what you said and give you extra bonus-points for saying it in a calm and rational manner. I do however take issue with this statement:

      "there is not actually much of a reason to say warming happens when it does not, whereas there are clear financial and economic reasons to claim there is no warming"

      There are huge financial incentives out there going both ways. When government takes a stand on climate change and enacts legislation to curb emissions or increase efficiency standards someone has to pay, which implies that someone gets paid. Especially if we start talking "carbon credits." Sometimes the cost gets passed on to the consumers, and most times it cuts into profits.

      Not that it's a bad thing mind you, I happen to like the earth the way that it is right now and think that a lot of corporations have and are getting rich by exploiting the environment, but if you follow the money that is lost or taken from the old guard (oil and gas industries, traditional power generation, etc.) and follow it... it leads to some people with really deep pockets and loads of political and media influence. GE springs to mind immediately, but there are lots of others.

      I personally believe that "winning" this argument about climate change will require everyone to take a step back and be honest about *all* of the interests at play, not just the ones on the opposing side.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 10 2015, @04:02AM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday February 10 2015, @04:02AM (#142984)

        When government takes a stand on climate change and enacts legislation to curb emissions or increase efficiency standards someone has to pay, which implies that someone gets paid.

        Yes-ish. This would probably not be an instance of the government giving out a huge subsidy to somebody, more like the government making CO2 emissions more expensive, which causes a lot of behavior and market adjustments. For example, solar and wind power companies would do well because their prices would become more competitive, that kind of thing. The companies that would pay the heaviest price due to the reduction in demand for their products would be coal miners and oil drillers, with a corresponding drop in jobs in West Virginia and Texas, unless they converted into other energy-related sectors.

        What it sounded like you were afraid of is that the public policy response would be along the lines of "BP, give us $4 gajillion or else, for carbon offsets. Solyndra, here's $4 gajillion to do with as you please, and ignore that kickback^Hcampaign donation everyone." But that really isn't what anyone has been suggesting is the right government action to take.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday February 10 2015, @09:58AM

        by moondrake (2658) on Tuesday February 10 2015, @09:58AM (#143060)

        Good point. I think I was thinking too much from my own perspective. I could (have not done so) submit a proposal related to climate change. I would do this because it is seen as a worthwhile justification for my research (and the powers that be have decided that we should do "useful" research). Hence, if I want to have any chance of getting a grant, I have to write why it is important. Many EU grants even force you to pick a topic related to something that "they" (i.e. the bureaucrats) find interesting.

        I would not care much (and I think most scientist would care little, the exception being the people that did nothing else than claim there was warming, but only the older established names would suffer a bit) if there was no money in relating my research to global warming. With minimal changes, it could also be useful for agriculture or other interests of society (I will leave in the middle here whether or not governments should attempt to regulate basic research in this way).

        I am not familiar with all the economics surrounding carbon credits and such, but I assume guess in the end, its mostly the government that gets paid? I would hazard a guess that governments always find ways to tax things, be there warming or not.

        I think what I am getting at is that I feel "money" is the cause of claiming there is no warming, but money is merely an effect of claiming there is warming. But I admit that I have little insights on the broader politics surrounding this issue.

    • (Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Wednesday February 11 2015, @09:26PM

      by anfieldsierra (3609) on Wednesday February 11 2015, @09:26PM (#143775)

      I personally find it hard to be believe that a some people in rural Paraguay in the 60's would want to affect the global averages by changing some numbers. It is far more likely they had reasons for adjusting the numbers (new equipment, influence of local environment, etc etc). That is not to say that calibration can not be done wrongly, and who knows, the data in question may really be bad.

      You're completely off base. People in rural Paraguay didn't have anything to do with this. The question is why the "climate scientists" have decided that whatever happened in rural Paraguay in the 60's was somehow incorrect and now needs to be changed.

      Unfortunately, in the past, and in remote areas, it was not always carefully documented why and how exactly the data was adjusted. This is a lot better now (and we can thank the denialist for that), but you cannot do much about all these old numbers.

      You've completely misunderstood the nature of the raw vs adjusted data. No-one in the 60s/in remote areas adjusted the temperature measurements. The old numbers are the raw un-adjusted data. The adjustments have been made recently, after the fact.

      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday February 11 2015, @10:57PM

        by moondrake (2658) on Wednesday February 11 2015, @10:57PM (#143843)

        well, the various sources did quite a bad job at explaining who when made what changes. So my first impression when I posted this was that it happened locally.

        But, as expressed by various other people here, even if changes were made afterwards, there can be many good reasons for them.