• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

expat_panama

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
672
Reaction score
245
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
from: Blog: Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

Daniel G. Jones March 14, 2017

For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming. Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers' emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren't quite on the up-and-up, science-wise. Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests. "Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.

It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity...


...the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!

Oh, you'd never heard of it? I bet you've heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake "Pausebuster" data...


...Al Gore adviser, predicted that by 1995, the greenhouse effect would be "desolating...


...UNEP warned that by 2010, some 50 million "climate refugees" would be fleeing low-lying Caribbean and Pacific islands...


...Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013...


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

--and somehow all this never stops AGW advocates from maintaining that the consensus is 99.99%, the data are solid, and their climate models are always right.
 
expat_panama said:
For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming.
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:
FrenchNationalSoccerTeam-1959-2008_team_diversity_france_babylon_multikulti_unsinn_frankreich_world%2Bcupp_weltmeisterschaft.jpg



"Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.
No, it didn't. Even if every single accusation had been correct, it would have been a drop in a bucket; it wouldn't change the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players. However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as every major investigation has concluded.

It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity...

...the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!

Oh, you'd never heard of it? I bet you've heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake "Pausebuster" data...

We'd heard of it. By February 7th, Bates' story was very different from the original hyped-up Daily Mail headline and what right-wing circles were (and still are) promoting and believing. Perhaps your blogger didn't hear that fact, or has just chosen to ignore it?
"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.​

...Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013...

No he didn't. In his Nobel lecture in December 2007 - after a summer with the lowest-ever recorded extent of Arctic sea ice, though it's declined further since then - he cited the earliest estimates of its summer disappearance from two papers: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."

7 years from 2007 would be the summer of 2014. This is absolutely basic, 1st grade stuff. But in 2012 the sea ice extent was almost one million square kilometers lower than the previous record low (~4.2 million in 2007, ~3.4 million in 2012), and so - predictably - in 2013 there were any number of headlines in right-wing rags about the "increase" of sea ice extent. (It was ~5 million sq. km in the summer of 2013, compared to ~6.4 million for the 1980-2010 median.) Not surprisingly, it seems that all the propagandists and pundits who couldn't be bothered to do some very very basic fact-checking and mathematics also decided that an extra year was far too long to wait before bringing out their falsehoods and mocking of Gore.



Even if the scientific consensus were not enough to go on, stuff like this - the utter disregard for context, nuance, accuracy or honesty in the 'sceptical' blogosphere - would be a pretty compelling basis on which to conclude that the contrarians have basically nothing to say that's worth listening to. Presumably if there were good points to be made, they would make them. Instead 90% of what we see on this forum are unsubstantiated accusations, conspiracy theories, shaky understanding of even quite basic information, half-truths and sometimes outright lies. There are a couple of 'sceptics' here capable of holding an intelligent discussion, but even they rarely if ever call out all the garbage for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:
FrenchNationalSoccerTeam-1959-2008_team_diversity_france_babylon_multikulti_unsinn_frankreich_world%2Bcupp_weltmeisterschaft.jpg




No, it didn't. Even if every single accusation had been correct, it would have been a drop in a bucket; it wouldn't change the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players. However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as every major investigation has concluded.



We'd heard of it. By February 7th, Bates' story was very different from the original hyped-up Daily Mail headline and what right-wing circles were (and still are) promoting and believing. Perhaps your blogger didn't hear that fact, or has just chosen to ignore it?
"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.​



No he didn't. In his Nobel lecture in December 2007 - after a summer with the lowest-ever recorded extent of Arctic sea ice, though it's declined further since then - he cited the earliest estimates of its summer disappearance from two papers: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."

7 years from 2007 would be the summer of 2014. This is absolutely basic, 1st grade stuff. But in 2012 the sea ice extent was almost one million square kilometers lower than the previous record low (~4.2 million in 2007, ~3.4 million in 2012), and so - predictably - in 2013 there were any number of headlines in right-wing rags about the "increase" of sea ice extent. (It was ~5 million sq. km in the summer of 2013, compared to ~6.4 million for the 1980-2010 median.) Not surprisingly, it seems that all the propagandists and pundits who couldn't be bothered to do some very very basic fact-checking and mathematics also decided that an extra year was far too long to wait before bringing out their falsehoods and mocking of Gore.



Even if the scientific consensus were not enough to go on, stuff like this - the utter disregard for context, nuance, accuracy or honesty in the 'sceptical' blogosphere - would be a pretty compelling basis on which to conclude that the contrarians have basically nothing to say that's worth listening to. Presumably if there were good points to be made, they would make them. Instead 90% of what we see on this forum are unsubstantiated accusations, conspiracy theories, shaky understanding of even quite basic information, half-truths and sometimes outright lies. There are a couple of 'sceptics' here capable of holding an intelligent discussion, but even they rarely if ever call out all the garbage for what it is.

More than a whiff of desperation in your post, Mith ... especially that last paragraph. But defending Al Gore was a bridge too far.
 
from: Blog: Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

Daniel G. Jones March 14, 2017

For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming. Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers' emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren't quite on the up-and-up, science-wise. Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests. "Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.

It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity...


...the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!

Oh, you'd never heard of it? I bet you've heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake "Pausebuster" data...


...Al Gore adviser, predicted that by 1995, the greenhouse effect would be "desolating...


...UNEP warned that by 2010, some 50 million "climate refugees" would be fleeing low-lying Caribbean and Pacific islands...


...Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013...


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

--and somehow all this never stops AGW advocates from maintaining that the consensus is 99.99%, the data are solid, and their climate models are always right.
Hello, and welcome to DP!
It would be easy to look at the climate gate emails and say things were not on the up and up related to the
temperature records, and there could be some truth to that.
The real problem with the climate gate emails is actually more dangerous.
The emails represent a group of authoritarian figures who place a political agenda above science.
By showing they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself to advance their cause.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow —
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,
but in addition must be close to 3C. Papers that did not follow this were to be excluded from publication.
If a paper somehow made it into a journal, that journal should be punished,
Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably
supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
Thanks,
mike
 
More than a whiff of desperation in your post, Mith ... especially that last paragraph. But defending Al Gore was a bridge too far.

Desperation?

I think it was a different 'D' word.

Dismantling.

You guys are too funny.
 
and this:
Funny stuff

Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all
confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species
zones of habitation
Is it a catastrophic disaster in the making that requires me to do exactly
as your side of the coin says?

Even if every single accusation had been correct ... it wouldn't change
the greenhouse effect or atmospheric physics, it wouldn't change the decline
of solar radiation over the past half century, it wouldn't change the
increasing surface temperatures recorded by agencies outside the UK, it
wouldn't change the increasing atmospheric temperatures recorded by satellite
measurements, it wouldn't change the retreating glaciers or the melting sea
ice or the extreme tanning of French soccer players.
None of that requires me to drastically change my life style.
If you think it does, please say why.

However besides Phil Jones' failure to comply with FOI requests, the
sensationalist accusations overwhelmingly were not true, as
every major investigation has concluded.
Wikipedia? You might as well quote Truth Out, or Mother Jones, or Skeptical Science etc.

Here's the link to the let's remove the 1940s blip email from Phil Jones:

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

I really don't give a flying YouKnowWhat what every major investigation has
concluded when I can read the actual stuff for myself.

I mean really, are you going to tell me Phil Jones didn't write that or it
doesn't mean what it looks like it means?

Well I'm not going go point by point on the rest of your post when the first
thing you brought up doesn't ring true.
 
...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it...
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.

If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree.

The fact that you're making a serious claim means need to say which measurements you're talking about. What happens when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
noaadatasets.png

--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
 
Hello, and welcome to DP!
It would be easy to look at the climate gate emails and say things were not on the up and up related to the
temperature records, and there could be some truth to that.
The real problem with the climate gate emails is actually more dangerous.
The emails represent a group of authoritarian figures who place a political agenda above science.
By showing they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself to advance their cause.

The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,
but in addition must be close to 3C. Papers that did not follow this were to be excluded from publication.
If a paper somehow made it into a journal, that journal should be punished,

In my view the whole AGW agenda never really recovered from this hit. Public concerns on this issue have declined fairly dramatically in light of stuff like this and even the politicians are backing away from many draconian policies they advocated at the time. Here in the UK we had a barrage of government sponsored propaganda that stopped not long after this.

As the old adage goes 'you can fool some of the people some of the time' .....etc
 
Dont worry. Now that there is someone NOT a democrat in the WH, leftists will be starting up their Global Warming poutrage soon enough. They just have to wait til they can be reasonably sure their protests dont get snowed out...then they will be back in full force.
 
Dont worry. Now that there is someone NOT a democrat in the WH, leftists will be starting up their Global Warming poutrage soon enough. They just have to wait til they can be reasonably sure their protests dont get snowed out...then they will be back in full force.

I doubt it. People are bored with this one trick pony and will not pay to keep watching it anymore
 
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.

If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree.

The fact that you're making a serious claim means need to say which measurements you're talking about. What happens when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
noaadatasets.png
--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.

If you had even bothered to glance at the source you are claiming to base this on, you would know that the data ends 95 years before the "present."

Code:
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present) 
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C) 

          Age           Temperature (C) 
       0.0951409         -31.5913

The fact that you've got a graph labelled up to ~1995 shows that either you have been duped by someone (whose work you didn't bother to check), or else you yourself are trying to deceive others.

Furthermore if you had looked at the paper in question you would know that it (quite confusingly, though perhaps it's a convention in the field) counts 1950 as the 'present.' Thus, the final point of that data is from 1855.

That fact has not stopped 'sceptics' (including our friend Flogger as recently as earlier this month) from constantly parading a grossly mislabeled and misleading graph of that data around, as if to say "See, global warming is a hoax because Greenland has been hotter in the past." Apparently the sceptical faculties are so important that they must reserved only for information which they don't like :roll: Most troubling of all, I have explicitly pointed these facts out to Flogger more than once, and Steve Case seems to be a fairly informed individual... yet instead of kindly correcting the false information which you were misled into posting, both of those people liked your post and prolonged your ignorance!

Once again, this is the kind of ridiculous 'logic' and utter contempt for truth and accuracy which shows how intellectually bankrupt climate contrarianism often is.
 
Last edited:
The emails represent a group of authoritarian figures who place a political agenda above science.
By showing they were willing to corrupt the scientific processes itself to advance their cause.

The agenda was not only that the ECS warming would be in the large range of the IPCC,
but in addition must be close to 3C. Papers that did not follow this were to be excluded from publication.
If a paper somehow made it into a journal, that journal should be punished,

If a paper has little or no scientific merit, reviewers should exclude it from publication. Of course anyone can start a "peer-reviewed journal," so if journal does frequently publish papers with little or no scientific merit, the scientific community has every right and arguably responsibility to take note of the low standards of that journal.

Are you honestly suggesting that they have some kind of obligation to keep endorsing any given journal no matter how low and unscientific its standards become? And that's supposed to uphold the scientific process? I don't geddit :doh

As I've already pointed out, the reviews of the emails' content and context have all cleared the people involved of any fraud, scientific misconduct or behaviour outside the norms of their fields. They did note a "culture of non-disclosure" at the University of East Anglia and recommend institutional reforms to help correct that; but while that's a matter of concern for scientific transparency, it did not change the accuracy or validity of the research done, and as these were more institutional than individual shortcomings even Phil Jones (who was suspended during the investigations) was later reinstated. Similarly across the pond, Penn State's investigations into Michael Mann resulted only in glowing endorsements of his scientific work and integrity.

March 2010, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report:
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. . . .

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.​



April 2010, Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.​



July 2010, The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.​
 
...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it...
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.

If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend... ...when I pull out a dataset like say, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt , the numbers plot out like this:
noaadatasets.png

--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.
If you had even bothered to ... ...this is the kind of ridiculous 'logic'...
Please, what part of 'YES' do you not understand?

You're seeing something and I am not seeing it and I'm telling you that what I see is not what I want to look at. I want to look at what you are looking at. You say you have "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." so please share one of the datasets here so we can plot the numbers and agree together.
 
Please, what part of 'YES' do you not understand?

You're seeing something and I am not seeing it and I'm telling you that what I see is not what I want to look at. I want to look at what you are looking at. You say you have "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." so please share one of the datasets here so we can plot the numbers and agree together.

Maybe you should first address the issues raised about the things which you have posted: The numerous false and misleading claims from the blog in your opening post and in your graph. If you're unable or unwilling to honestly acknowledge even these (some of them) exceptionally egregious errors, there really wouldn't be any point in further discussion would there?
 
If a paper has little or no scientific merit, reviewers should exclude it from publication. Of course anyone can start a "peer-reviewed journal," so if journal does frequently publish papers with little or no scientific merit, the scientific community has every right and arguably responsibility to take note of the low standards of that journal.

Are you honestly suggesting that they have some kind of obligation to keep endorsing any given journal no matter how low and unscientific its standards become? And that's supposed to uphold the scientific process? I don't geddit :doh

As I've already pointed out, the reviews of the emails' content and context have all cleared the people involved of any fraud, scientific misconduct or behaviour outside the norms of their fields. They did note a "culture of non-disclosure" at the University of East Anglia and recommend institutional reforms to help correct that; but while that's a matter of concern for scientific transparency, it did not change the accuracy or validity of the research done, and as these were more institutional than individual shortcomings even Phil Jones (who was suspended during the investigations) was later reinstated. Similarly across the pond, Penn State's investigations into Michael Mann resulted only in glowing endorsements of his scientific work and integrity.

March 2010, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report:
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. . . .

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.​



April 2010, Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.​



July 2010, The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.​
There is a difference between not supporting a Journal with sloppy practices,
and encouraging others to not work with the journal because you think they
publish work that harms your political message.
If the work passes peer review, it is qualified, if it is not then there is a problem with the peer review process.

Since I did not say any fraud was involved, I am not sure why you felt the need to defend the climate gate participants
against fraud!
 
Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y2wJFq-ZulY/TbnvvHHXAPI/AAAAAAAABgU/Sm7tkfa37aw/s1600/FrenchNationalSoccerTeam-[/QUOTE]

You're using political and economic immigration for climate immigration? Interesting. That aside, I think many accept that we've warmed up some, we did recently have a cooling period called the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1300-1850.
 
Wikipedia? You might as well quote Truth Out, or Mother Jones, or Skeptical Science etc.

Here's the link to the let's remove the 1940s blip email from Phil Jones:

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

I really don't give a flying YouKnowWhat what every major investigation has
concluded when I can read the actual stuff for myself.

I mean really, are you going to tell me Phil Jones didn't write that or it
doesn't mean what it looks like it means?

What do you think it looks like it means? If you're suggesting that they were analyzing the raw temperature data and noticed a major discrepancy which might stem from observational biases during or after World War Two - that the sea surface temperatures became inexplicably much cooler after the war than the oceanic circulations or land temperatures would suggest - and began talking about why the raw data showed that and whether it was a demonstrable bias which should be corrected then yes, it probably means what it looks like.

If you're suggesting that three people conspired to unilaterally falsify the data of the world's most-used temperature series - hoping that no-one would notice or ask awkward questions - so that they could achieve their nefarious ends by fooling everyone with an extra... um... about one thousandth of a degree of global ocean warming...?

No, that's patently absurd: Much as I am forced to admire your aeronautic copulation skills, I'm going to have to go with the numerous independent reviews on this.

By the looks of it the changes discussed did end up going through with HadSST3 in 2012, even after all the scrutiny and conspiracy theories surrounding these emails. Interestingly, it looks like the sea-surface data used by GISS (ERSST4 if memory serves) did not implement similar changes, so one of the few divergences between HadCRUT4 and GISS occurs at that point. The fact that these multiple agencies cross-check with overlapping but slightly different data and often very different methodologies is yet another fact showing that while there will always be uncertainties, especially with older data, the generally high level of agreement suggests that they're probably not far off the mark.

Wood for Trees
offset:0.8
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one confused by the relevance of the French soccer team?

I get it has changed... like the earth... but is that it?
 
You're using political and economic immigration for climate immigration? Interesting. That aside, I think many accept that we've warmed up some, we did recently have a cooling period called the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1300-1850.

It was a joke, based on the amusing phenomenon of a traditionally and still predominantly white country having an all-black soccer team. The humorous implication is that they got darker skin because of a hotter climate :doh

Don't blame me if you don't like it, I saw it elsewhere a while back and got a giggle from it - so really I'm the victim here!

There is a difference between not supporting a Journal with sloppy practices,
and encouraging others to not work with the journal because you think they
publish work that harms your political message.
If the work passes peer review, it is qualified, if it is not then there is a problem with the peer review process.

There undoubtedly is room for improvement in many if not most journals' peer review process and science in general: Double-blind reviewing, keeping accessible records of reviewers' comments for or against acceptance, and publicly-funded archives of 'unsuccessful' experiment results are three ideas I've seen which would probably be worth implementing. But journals are generally privately-owned and respond to the needs of their main clients, not you or I. Thus, as I said, if there's a particularly egregious problem with any given journal's practices, scientists in the relevant field/s are among the best-placed folk to push for improvement.

You have not provided a single jot of evidence that this had anything to do with a political agenda, whereas I have shown that according to the various panels and committees reviewing the emails, "the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process," "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" and so on.
 
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.

If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree.

Then the first thing we need to agree upon is that you're mixing incompatible datasets. The first dataset you're posting is for Greenland only, while the second dataset is global (and incomplete to boot). In order to compare contemporary global temperatures to paleo temperatures, you need a global paleo dataset. Something that includes the Greenland data you're so eager to post, but that also includes everywhere else in the world too. Fortunately, we have that data. Here it is:

32598197514_c3eb0bf6ee_b.jpg


--so you must be using some research I haven't found yet. Please work with me.

Sources posted. Let me know if you have any questions.
 
It was a joke, based on the amusing phenomenon of a traditionally and still predominantly white country having an all-black soccer team. The humorous implication is that they got darker skin because of a hotter climate :doh

Don't blame me if you don't like it, I saw it elsewhere a while back and got a giggle from it - so really I'm the victim here!

Sorry, I thought you were trying to make a legitimate point vice a tongue-in-cheek type of joke. It is kinda funny that the entire team didn't have a single white dude on it, though.
 
It was a joke, based on the amusing phenomenon of a traditionally and still predominantly white country having an all-black soccer team. The humorous implication is that they got darker skin because of a hotter climate :doh

Don't blame me if you don't like it, I saw it elsewhere a while back and got a giggle from it - so really I'm the victim here!



There undoubtedly is room for improvement in many if not most journals' peer review process and science in general: Double-blind reviewing, keeping accessible records of reviewers' comments for or against acceptance, and publicly-funded archives of 'unsuccessful' experiment results are three ideas I've seen which would probably be worth implementing. But journals are generally privately-owned and respond to the needs of their main clients, not you or I. Thus, as I said, if there's a particularly egregious problem with any given journal's practices, scientists in the relevant field/s are among the best-placed folk to push for improvement.

You have not provided a single jot of evidence that this had anything to do with a political agenda, whereas I have shown that according to the various panels and committees reviewing the emails, "the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process," "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" and so on.
Only their own words suggest that they were trying to subvert the peer reviewed process.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow —
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
They did not want certain papers to become peer-reviewed, so they would not have to address them in the next IPCC report.
 
Back
Top Bottom