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:It Is Interesting (Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Wednesday February 11 2015, @09:09PM

  by anfieldsierra (3609) on Wednesday February 11 2015, @09:09PM (#143767)

  I did. Now the only thing missing is the methodolgy/rationale for the "adjustments" to the data. That (fairly important) information is not discussed *at all* by any of the "articles" you suggested I review.

  Surely this is exactly the point. Where in any of the literature is the justification for altering raw data ? You shouldn't be asking me about this. You should be demading that NASA supply their methodology/rationale for altering the past.

  The analytical process is documented here [nasa.gov] and here [nasa.gov].
  I skimmed them and noted a few items which *could* account for such changes in the data. However, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I going to do your work for you. If you want to refute the claims of those folks, then please do so.

  Unfortunately neither of these links has anything to do with why they have adjusted the raw station data from South America from 30-40 years ago.

  If you wish to contradict those folks in a persuasive (and none of the links provided or referenced do this) way, you'll need to clearly identify the flaws in the methodologies and analytical processes.
  Otherwise, you're (like that blogger) just jumping up and down screaming "look maw! those graphs don't match! There must be some evil stuff goin' on! Those edumacated folk are tryin' to put one over on us!"

  No, no, no. I don't have to justify why adjusting raw data is incorrect. The ones actually making adjustments are those who must justify why they need to do this.

  And does anyone else find it strange that these adjustments only ever increase a warming trend ?

  Parent