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: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday February 10 2015, @09:58AM
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.