Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Another Climate Data Scandal

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

BK writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Another Climate Data Scandal | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 79 comments | Search Discussion
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, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 09 2015, @10:48PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 09 2015, @10:48PM (#142902) Journal

    I'm all for these libelous-sounding stories, because there is one sure-fire defence against libelous claims - and that's to show them to be untrue, and support your data.
     
    It's FUD, pure and simple. There is no claim to defend. It's hand-wavy and vague specifically so it can't be rebutted.
     
    Seems like a shocking pattern of systematic alterations would leave some evidence. Why isn't it presented here?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday February 09 2015, @11:15PM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday February 09 2015, @11:15PM (#142913) Homepage
    It's not that handwavey. Explain the paraguay adjustment. Explain the Arctic adjustment. Those are very concrete things. If you can't justify it, it was not justified. After doing some reading, I am happy that both can be explained. Booker's now mud. The Torygraph (which I had the displeasure of reading 2 weeks ago, when I visited my parents) is mud, more so than at any prior point in history that I remember. I mean, truly, it's a dreadful "newspaper". Booker's association with it makes perfect sense, he fits right in.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:45PM (#142919)

    May I examine your data and the protocol(s) you used to gather it?
    May I see the method you used to analyze the data?
    Where are your results published for peer review?

    Any further discussion should -follow- the receipt of acceptable answers to those queries.
    Most of this junk isn't Science.

    When things are done to their proper conclusions, you get results like Andrew Wakefield being forbidden to practice medicine any longer.

    -- gewg_