Telegraph: Huge science scandal caused by manipulation of temps for global warming

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
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.
...
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Sad ...
 

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
The Telegraph lost whatever credibility it had on this subject when it broke the 'climategate' non-scandal, and the fact that it has failed to stop going on about it, even when their accusations were so comprehensively disproven.

I will wait for professionals to cast doubt on these interpretations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0

brewmama

Senior Veteran
Dec 14, 2002
6,087
1,011
Colorado
Visit site
✟27,718.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Telegraph lost whatever credibility it had on this subject when it broke the 'climategate' non-scandal, and the fact that it has failed to stop going on about it, even when their accusations were so comprehensively disproven.

I will wait for professionals to cast doubt on these interpretations.

They were not "comprehensively disproven", and it was certainly not a non-scandal.

The whole affair is forensically detailed in http://www.amazon.com/Hiding-Declin...8&qid=1423433511&sr=8-14&keywords=climategate.

And what do you think about the Harry_Read_Me file?

ClimateGate After Five Years: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from Leaked Files That Media Ignored
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The Telegraph lost whatever credibility it had on this subject when it broke the 'climategate' non-scandal, and the fact that it has failed to stop going on about it, even when their accusations were so comprehensively disproven.

I will wait for professionals to cast doubt on these interpretations.

The one losing the credibility at the moment here is you...

You're saying we should sit back and let the person accused of wrongdoing investigate themselves, anyone else see a problem with that?
 
Upvote 0

Sistrin

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...
Supporter
Jun 9, 2012
6,488
3,399
Location Location Location
✟197,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Flashback: Meteorologist Anthony Watts on ‘adjusted’ U.S. temperature data: ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘The raw temperature data is continually adjusted to show more warming’ - PATRICK J. MICHAELS and PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER:

U.S. temperature ‘history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end’ -‘A major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’ - ‘Please be advised that this history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end. Not one “adjustment” has the opposite effect, a clear contravention of logic and probability. While the US has gotten slightly warmer in recent decades, compared to the early 20th century, so have the data themselves. It’s a fact that if you just take all the thousands of fairly evenly-spaced “official” weather stations around the country and average them up since 1895, that you won’t get much of a warming trend at all. Consequently a major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’


Flashback: Meteorologist Anthony Watts on ‘adjusted’ U.S. temperature data: ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data’ | Climate Depot
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
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.
...
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Sad ...
Sad but true
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
First this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA


And also,

Strangely, when I go down the rabbit hole of links to find this stuff, I am lead to this blog in which the author specifically singles out the weather station Puerto Casado in Paraguay.

He links to the "tampered data" with this link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14

He then links to the "raw" data with this link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1

But its weird, because if I go to this link which has the raw data, I can't for the life of me find the raw data graph which he posts in his article…perhaps he is the one doing some tampering. Who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
[FONT=&quot]Ohh, what misinformation is Chris Booker spinning this time?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is it that asbestos isn’t harmful to humans?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is it intelligent design is valid science?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is it that there’s no link between second hand smoke and cancer?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No, its global warming and the ‘manipulated’ data[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A review of the University of East Anglia emails, after investigation from the university itself AND the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee AND the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]independent Science Assessment Panel AND the independent Climate Change Email Review board, found “no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda" and that there was “no case to answer”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yet, Chris Booker, a non-scientist with a scientific forecasting track record like a marathon through a minefield, and Paul Homewood, a climate blogger who I can find no credentials for whatsoever, have agreed between them that they know better than the vast majority of the world’s climactic scientists and statisticians. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Apparently because they think that professional scientists aren’t supposed to adjust their data for noise, particularly for periods when there are fewer data points available, using standard statistical techniques. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m all for the self-educated making a contribution, but I’ve seen no attempt by either to actually join the game, as it were. Instead they seem to be more satisfied sitting in the grandstands screaming that the goalposts are being moved and then busily congratulating themselves on their perspicacity. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Actually, I’m quite glad Booker is a climate-change denialist. As a general policy, its pretty safe to be for anything that he’s against and against anything he’s for. It’s an almost certain method of being on the right side of an issue. [/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
This makes me giggle.

Instead of listening to climatologists, they listen to a news reporter who is quoting a blogger who says:
"The more I look at climate issues, the more I realise that we cannot always rely on what the climate establishment tell us." So essentially, someone has "trust issues" cause the big mean green machine is "comin' to get ya!"

Instead of listening to their own doctors, the AMA, every health body on the ENTIRE planet, anti-vaxxers listen to a friend of an uncle of their postman's twin brother, and blogs like this: Traditional Diet, Holistic Health | The Healthy Home Economist
Why is there a distrust of the health establishment? Who cares why. Their opinion is informed BY that distrust and not on solid scientific research. I'm not going to force or shame anti-vaxxers into getting vaccines, but I'm not going to listen to their tripe suggesting that vaccines are killing our kids and causing autism. BEcause that is not correct.

Many denier's opinions are based on feelings that come about due to a "lack of trust" in "the establishment (whatever establishment that may be). This is true of anti-vaxxers; this is true of AGW deniers. You are welcome to deny that but honestly, your posts all bring this to bear again and again. Every time a new blog post gets up and it gets air time on wattsupwiththat, the telegraph or the mail (I'd wager about 90% of denialist "shockers" come from these three sources on this site). There is never any sound scientific research presented here (and RARELY anywhere in the world) that comes close to denying climate change. You are ruled by your emotions and feelings instead of solid scientific evidence; just like anti-vaxxers.

I personally don't care if you choose to live that way. Just please don't trick yourself into thinking that scientific research of ANY stripe bears that out. Recognize that your opinion is based on a lack of trust in people you find shadey and money grabbing.

And is this ad homenim? I guess it's how you look at it. If you create a track record for yourself that undermines the credibility of your argument and your argument is under-supported, why do you or your argument deserve an open ear in a discussion? Don't get me wrong; EVERYTHING deserves a look in. Not everything deserves the respect of an actual discussion and debate. And, ESPECIALLY if these EXACT discussion have happenned, oh, I don't know hundreds of times in the past and you refuse to put in effort to understand the explanation received (or don't accept it because of your own TRUST issues), people might get tired of the the same old wollop.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
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.
...
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Sad ...

No matter how much evidence is uncovered of data manipulation, the global warming crowd will not relent. Global warming is the best common enemy that can be used to instill fear into people to get them to willingly give up control of their lives and submit to the control of liberal elitists.
 
Upvote 0

brewmama

Senior Veteran
Dec 14, 2002
6,087
1,011
Colorado
Visit site
✟27,718.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Strangely, when I go down the rabbit hole of links to find this stuff, I am lead to this blog in which the author specifically singles out the weather station Puerto Casado in Paraguay.

He links to the "tampered data" with this link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14

He then links to the "raw" data with this link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1

But its weird, because if I go to this link which has the raw data, I can't for the life of me find the raw data graph which he posts in his article…perhaps he is the one doing some tampering. Who knows?


If you put all 5 of their graphs on one graph you get the one he posts. What's so hard about that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
They were not "comprehensively disproven", and it was certainly not a non-scandal.

The whole affair is forensically detailed in Hiding the Decline: A. W. Montford: 9781475293364: Amazon.com: Books.

And what do you think about the Harry-Read-Me file?

ClimateGate After Five Years: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from Leaked Files That Media Ignored
Ooh look, a blog!

Meanwhile, eight (8!) separate committees looked into 'Climategate' and found no serious fault with the way the CRU interpreted or presented their data.

Given that 8 is clearly insufficient in your mind, just how many committees finding no fault would satisfy you that there was no fault? Perhaps 50? 100?

Let's consider each committee:

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"

The Independent Climate Change Review said “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,”

The International Science Assessment Panel (Oxburgh Enquiry) concluded "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever,"

2 Separate Penn State University committees (1 & 2) found Dr Mann innocent of all allegations made against him

The US Environment Protection Agency found no fault, and instead were very critical of those who they said "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues". I think they might have been referring to bloggers!

The U.S. Department of Commerce said "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures,"

The US-based National Science Foundation found no “evidence of research misconduct,”

Quite a list isn't it? And yet, the 'controversy' rages on amongst bloggers and news outlets owned or funded by those with big oil interests.

You're saying we should sit back and let the person accused of wrongdoing investigate themselves, anyone else see a problem with that?
Go ahead and look up the various organisations who conducted these enquiries. British and US governments, independent advisory authorities in both countries, hardly the CRU 'investigating itself' is it?

You all really need to stop referring to 'climategate', because continuing to go on about it, in the face of such a tsunami of contrary expert assessments, makes your whole case look more and more desperate.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If you put all 5 of their graphs on one graph you get the one he posts. What's so hard about that?

Can you point me to the link on the NASA webpage which has his graph plotted?

Did he make the graph himself? Because I can't find it on the NASA webpage.

Can you direct me through the set of searches and links I need to go through in order to find the graph he plotted on his webpage? Starting from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Using the NASA search engine I can find the Puerto Casado analyzed data, the raw data for certain years, and the de-noised data. But I can't find the specific graph which he shows in his blog. The best I can get for raw data is this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?d=1&ds=0&name=casado



Also, its not like it matters because if you watched the video I posted, this all just comes down to calibration error anyway…

Its also kinda sad. How long did some schmuck spend scouring these temperature records before finding these three Paraguayan results which happen to have downward trending calibration errors? I mean, if this truly was a scam, they should be able to find this kind of "global" downward trend in ALL or MOST of the data, right?

But I can play the game too: check out all these graphs of Edmonton, AB, Canada. This is the raw data and it clearly shows an upward trend in all the raw data graphs no matter the time window. And obviously this Canadian station and the Paraguayan station are representative of the whole global temperature. Its not like we're picking and choosing or anything, amiright?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Off-topic.

This thread is about the sustained deliberate manipulation of temperature data for the purpose of buttressing the political global warming argument.
This topic is about lies and the lying liars who tell them. The Telegraph is telling lies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sistrin

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...
Supporter
Jun 9, 2012
6,488
3,399
Location Location Location
✟197,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This makes me giggle.

This makes me giggle:

black-sheep.jpg
 
Upvote 0