SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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) by BK on Tuesday February 10 2015, @04:49AM
This one is a classic. [cloudave.com]
The reasons for the made up data make perfect sense, but in the end, they sound like excuses. The methods used may be statistically valid, but finding refs to the use of statistics to support lies is left to the reader.
I suppose that you could make the arguement that every climate prediction made based on this "adjusted" data has proved to be undeniably correct... and that therefore the ends justify the means. Has the "adjusted" data made for compellingly accurate predictions?
Why should nations trust policy recommendations based on flawed data?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gnuman on Tuesday February 10 2015, @05:38AM
Why should nations trust policy recommendations based on flawed data?
Well, here it goes,
1. I do not make policy recommendations, but if I was, I would say listen to the scientists.
2. Scientists, in the field, argue and bicker *how* historical measurements should be adjusted to make those measurements match with reality. They consult with others, like mathematicians and physicists on this.
3. I am not qualified to guess how to adjust individual station measurements. I would need to read a few books and papers on how and why and when to do so. If you are interested, please start reading. You can't just handwave at it and call it "excuses".
There are people that spend their lives reconstructing temperature patterns from various sources. I'm less interested. The reason is that current temperatures are not indicative of future temperatures. No one ever extrapolates these measurements based on temperature trends anyway (models use CO2 levels, albedo, solar irradiance, etc.). Current measurements just measure the speed of the change that already happened. The important measurements are CO2 levels, historical CO2 levels and approximate temperatures millions of years ago. Correlating historical CO2 levels with historical temperatures gets us the end-point of what Anthropological Global Warming will result in. What climate great-great-great-great-great-grand-children will live in.
Anyway, you don't even need to look at the thermometer to know that climate is warming everywhere. Everything is moving north, from fish to flies to ticks to trees (though trees have severe problems moving at the speed of the warming climate). Today if you want to reach the North Pole, you certainly can't pack like Amundsen did over a 100 years ago. You'll drown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10 2015, @07:11AM
It is so weird how your post drips with a sort of snarky self-awareness that is actually not self-aware. Obviously you aren't doing it on purpose, but it is fuckin masterful anyway. Like dialogue for a character written by a consummate author, you do an amazing job of painting your personality on the page.