Fabricating Data in Climate Science - The Hijack

[RickG]

The issue is climate data and research is very flawed and many times it's fraudulent. We know from Climate gate that global warming vpropnants have been dishonest with their data. They have used SATA they want and dismissed findings that do not support their notions. They cherry pick and are prone to use methods purposefully to support what they want. Such as using ships to measure ocean temperatures instead of buoys DD despite the fact that doing so raises temperature. They get data from stations they know are more prone to higher readings. The hockey stick graph was proven to be fraudulent yet wsrmists still cling to that. Peer review has been shown to have lots of problems.
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Official investigations into all of the Climategate claims have been conducted both in the U.S. and Great Britain and found to be completely baseless. Would you like links to their reports?

 

[Heissonear]

The issue is climate data and research is very flawed and many times it's fraudulent. We know from Climate gate that global warming vpropnants have been dishonest with their data. They have used SATA they want and dismissed findings that do not support their notions. They cherry pick and are prone to use methods purposefully to support what they want. Such as using ships to measure ocean temperatures instead of buoys DD despite the fact that doing so raises temperature. They get data from stations they know are more prone to higher readings. The hockey stick graph was proven to be fraudulent yet wsrmists still cling to that. Peer review has been shown to have lots of problems.
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Notice how those on the CAGW Bandwagon sternly object to the exposures your post points out. In fact it is a stage of out right denial.

We are to expect more denial in the months and years ahead as the curtains are drawn by Trump administrative elects. More whistle-blower's, documents, emails, ...... it is not going to go well for Team Hockey Stick. How some have never faced up to the Hockey Stick trick is a precursor. I'd rather be open and choose truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice how those on the CAGW Bandwagon sternly object to the exposures your post points out. In fact it is a stage of out right denial.

Climategate was debunked years ago. Why are you guys still using it?

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia​

 

[essentialsaltes]

For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted.

It is only very recently in the West that this THEORY was decidedly abandoned in public. Let me repeat what was definitely said in the book:

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

These weren't conditional statements, and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public. If it was socially and "ethically" acceptable, the above quoted, and other similar Darwinian sentiments, would be publically accepted science.

Speaking of fabricating data, that is not Darwin. That quote is from the Klansman, by Thomas Dixon, a Baptist pastor critical of evolution. So 'the Church' did not get this idea from evolution. Quite the opposite.

 

[rjs330]

That's been debunked for ages now. Those scientists were quoted out of context in order to twist their words. When taken in context there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

Yeah it was debunked by climate change people who support the catastrophic agenda. The same kind of folks that caused the issue in the first place. There is twisting and cherry picking going on and there always has been.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

The hockey stick is another example as well as the computer models which predict far more devastating problems than are actually occurring. This catastrophic man made stuff is rife with problems. It's dishonest. If they would just be honest and say "look the climate is changing and we are not sure why, but we think it's this or it could be that.". They would findore support. But to continually spout falsehoods and twist and cherry pick I order to project we are all going to die from man made catastrophic change is not science. Just be honest.

Computer Models vs. Climate Reality

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah it was debunked by climate change people who support the catastrophic agenda. The same kind of folks that caused the issue in the first place. There is twisting and cherry picking going on and there always has been.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

We need more than bare links.

 

[RickG]

Yeah it was debunked by climate change people who support the catastrophic agenda.

That is not true, it was debunked by independent government and university inquiries in both the U.S. and United Kingdom.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20110330...v/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf

 

[Heissonear]

Yeah it was debunked by climate change people who support the catastrophic agenda. The same kind of folks that caused the issue in the first place. There is twisting and cherry picking going on and there always has been.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

The hockey stick is another example as well as the computer models which predict far more devastating problems than are actually occurring. This catastrophic man made stuff is rife with problems. It's dishonest. If they would just be honest and say "look the climate is changing and we are not sure why, but we think it's this or it could be that.". They would findore support. But to continually spout falsehoods and twist and cherry pick I order to project we are all going to die from man made catastrophic change is not science. Just be honest.

Computer Models vs. Climate Reality

These guys actual believe the investigations were liget. And the investigation docs actual mean something.

Meanwhile the rest of us did not even need them to understand what took place. Pretty simple to see errant elitist with ploy.

 

[Heissonear]

Yes, NOAA elite manipulated data and databases to produce a politically oriented technical paper for COP21 in Paris. The Pausebuster paper.

With Trump Admins now in charge the scientists that were coauthors are on the hotseat, starting this week.

And this has just begun. This week there have been 3 different databases produced and found at odds with Karl et al Pausebuster database.

The curtain is being pulled back from what has been going on within NOAA. The graphic below is an indicator of the political activism that is starting to show itself, not Climate Science.

 

[rjs330]

That is not true, it was debunked by independent government and university inquiries in both the U.S. and United Kingdom.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20110330...v/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf

Yep debunked by the very people who support it in the first place. Just like I said.

 

[rjs330]

We need more than bare links.

Try this hopefully it works.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

 

[Aryeh]

Speaking of fabricating data, that is not Darwin. That quote is from the Klansman, by Thomas Dixon, a Baptist pastor critical of evolution. So 'the Church' did not get this idea from evolution. Quite the opposite.

Interesting.

What about this from Descent of Man:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

That was Darwin, no? And ideas like it pushed, albeit likely hijacked, to help produce social darwinism. Of course in Darwin''s time he wouldn't be considered racist at all for this, even today obviously. He would be seen as anthropological.

Darwin''s "ambiguity" on racial inferiority certainly did no favors for the scientific community. Although, he certainly wasn't the only one to use "modern" science to justify racial inferiority.

Darwin is not, and shouldn't be extolled as some shining figure of non-racist biological human study. He was not ahead of his time on the “savage races;" he famously exploited the racist thinking of his time, accepting the Western racist concept of “human races” of his day. He also wrote negatively about racial superiority and inferiority just like his peers. Even though he was a critical thinker in biology, botany, and religion, he never openly broke with the vicious racist thinking of his day.

Just because someone is against slavery does not mean they are not racist. Just because a person believes animals deserve to be treated with kindness instead of cruelty doesn't mean the person believes the animal is equal to him/her.

I don't want to derail this thread on this, but it is related to data fabrication, ambiguity, error, and misinformation.

 

[Gene2memE]

Interesting.

What about this from Descent of Man:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

That was Darwin, no? And ideas like it pushed, albeit likely hijacked, to help produce social darwinism. Of course in Darwin''s time he wouldn't be considered racist at all for this, even today obviously. He would be seen as anthropological.

Yes, but Darwin was not referring to race here, but to the level of 'civilisation',. Which, if you read the preceeding and proceeding chapters, it is clear that he mean cultural and technological development. So Europeans, with their cities and steam ships and rifles and genocide were 'civilised', and the Negro or the Australian Aborigine, with none of these things, were 'savage'.

Darwin''s "ambiguity" on racial inferiority certainly did no favors for the scientific community. Although, he certainly wasn't the only one to use "modern" science to justify racial inferiority.

I've no doubt that Darwin were poofed back into existence that some of his views would be considered heartily racist by the standards of today. Also sexist, homophobic and some just plain unscientific.

However, the errant twisting of his work in not his fault, anymore than the Wright brothers can be blamed for the carpet bombing during WW2.

Darwin is not, and shouldn't be extolled as some shining figure of non-racist biological human study. He was not ahead of his time on the “savage races;" he famously exploited the racist thinking of his time, accepting the Western racist concept of “human races” of his day. He also wrote negatively about racial superiority and inferiority just like his peers. Even though he was a critical thinker in biology, botany, and religion, he never openly broke with the vicious racist thinking of his day.

Darwin was a product of his time, but if you think him in lock step with his peers on racial views, you're in for a shock. Darwin's views on race were nuanced but also mixed, and became generally more in line with prevailing views as he got older.

But, even if Darwin was the worst racist to ever stride the face of the earth, none of that matters when assessing the scientific merits of his work. We don't cirtique Newton's Laws based on his thoroughly disreputable character.

I also find major irony in someone fabricating a Darwin quote on a topic about fabricated data in the climate change debate.

 

[RickG]

Yep debunked by the very people who support it in the first place. Just like I said.

I provided links to 6 different independent investigations. The reports are quite detailed, please point out in each of them where where any part of them supports your claim.

 

[RickG]

Try this hopefully it works.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

Are you aware that the editors of Wikipedia have voted to ban the "Daily Mail" as an unreliable source.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you aware that the editors of Wikipedia have voted to ban the "Daily Mail" as an unreliable source.

I didn't know that. It is a bit of a laughing stock over here though because of it's obvious biases.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting.

What about this from Descent of Man:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

That was Darwin, no?

Yes, and yes Darwin shared the common racist & classist & sexist assumptions of his day about the superiority of European gentlemen. But it is important to again make the distinction between what is and what ought to be. Gravity makes things fall down; this does not mean that we ought to go around making things fall down. Natural selection weeds out the unfit; this does not mean that we ought to go around killing people we deem unfit. Darwin's racist assumptions lead him to believe that the unfit varieties will die out, naturally, in competition with the more fit. He is not suggesting we kill them.

Indeed elsewhere, he writes of what we would now call the evolution of altruism.

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."

Here he does stray from what is, and discusses what ought to be. We ought not degrade our noble instincts. We ought to help the helpless; to do otherwise is a great evil. He explicitly rejects 'Social Darwinism', at least in its most fatal forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Try this hopefully it works.
Second leak of climate emails: Political giants weigh in on bias, scientists bowing to financial pressure from sponsors | Daily Mail Online

Let me repeat my earlier post:

"We need more than bare links."

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, NOAA elite manipulated data and databases to produce a politically oriented technical paper for COP21 in Paris. The Pausebuster paper.

Dealing in falsehoods only demonstrates your lack of legitimacy.

 

[Dave-W]

Notice how those on the CAGW Bandwagon sternly object to the exposures your post points out. In fact it is a stage of out right denial.

We are to expect more denial in the months and years ahead as the curtains are drawn by Trump administrative elects. More whistle-blower's, documents, emails, ...... it is not going to go well for Team Hockey Stick. How some have never faced up to the Hockey Stick trick is a precursor. I'd rather be open and choose truth.

My wife and I both work for NOAA. While our line office - National Ocean Service - has been mostly free from political manipulation; the guys next door at the National Weather Service have not. They have had more than their share of manipulation from the last 3 administrations. Clinton and Obama wanted to over-state the case for global warming and Bush jr wanted to under-state it. We have yet to see what Trump will do, but it may be back to the Bush years.

Both are equally wrong and dangerous IMO.