SoylentNews

Another Climate Data Scandal

posted by martyb on Monday February 09 2015, @09:45PM   
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?

• Re:Only half the question (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

  Parent

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