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

[MachZer0]

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.

I personally don't care if the global warming supporters live their lives in a manner they believe will ameliorate the change in climate. Just don't use it to exercise power and control over the rest of us, forcing us to live our lives according to your dictates. After all, that's all that global warming is about, power and control over commoners

 

[Btodd]

Off-topic.

This thread is about the sustained deliberate manipulation of temperature data for the purpose of buttressing the political global warming argument.

It was obvious sarcasm, conveying the right's inability to let facts get in the way of their ideological presuppositions. So no matter how many times they get refuted, they just double-down again.

Hey, I know. They should vote on repealing Obamacare. For the zillionth waste of time.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

I personally don't care if the global warming supporters live their lives in a manner they believe will ameliorate the change in climate. Just don't use it to exercise power and control over the rest of us, forcing us to live our lives according to your dictates. After all, that's all that global warming is about, power and control over commoners

Right. Climatologists don't even believe what they're saying, they're just part of the secret plot to control your lives.

/the stupid party, Jindal's words


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

DEATH PANELZ!!1!


Btodd

 

[NightHawkeye]

I personally don't care if the global warming supporters live their lives in a manner they believe will ameliorate the change in climate. Just don't use it to exercise power and control over the rest of us, forcing us to live our lives according to your dictates. After all, that's all that global warming is about, power and control over commoners

If the loudest global warming proponents would simply cut their own carbon footprints the planet would benefit greatly ... if one believes their arguments.

 

[rambot]

I personally don't care if the global warming supporters live their lives in a manner they believe will ameliorate the change in climate. Just don't use it to exercise power and control over the rest of us, forcing us to live our lives according to your dictates. After all, that's all that global warming is about, power and control over commoners

Mach.
I'm not even asking you to change anything about your lifestyle. I'm just hopeful that facts and knowledge from people who are BEST informed would matter to you and display some consistensy with it skill.

Stop going to the doctors. Stop taking your car in to be repaired by professionals. Stop living in a house that an architect designed. Stop flying in airplanes.

Global warming is as much about power and control as the anti-vaxx movement.

 

[brewmama]

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.


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.

If you are going to ignore what I posted and ignore my questions, then it's a wast of time talking to you. All your "lists" are addressed in Montford's book, which you will never read, but you will pat yourself on the back and claim that you know all the facts, when indeed you don't.

 

[brewmama]

[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]

So ad hom is the extent of your argument against Booker? I expected so much better.

The "investigations" after climategate, if you bothered to learn about them, appointed their own guys as investigators, did not ask the questions that were brought up about the emails, DID ask questions that no one else was asking and that were irrelevant, ignored the illegal refusal to submit to FOI requests, (which were not prosecuted because they were past their convenient and ridiculously short statute of limitations) etc.

It can best be summed up by the email that government chief scientist Sir John Beddington sent Ron Oxburgh (the man he had chosen to run the inquiry):

"Dear Ron,

Much appreciated the hard work put into the review, general view is that a blinder played. As we discussed at [the House of Lords], clearly the drinks are on me!

Best wishes,
John

 

[SuperCloud]

Understanding climatology is above my current ability to fully understand, in terms of the science and math involved.

But I have some small level, some small grasp, of what's trying to be communicated as the problem I believe. And as for now I see no reason to doubt human behaviors, consumption rates, have an impact on aggregate climate changes across the earth.

Though I believe this I think people warning about the future results of global warming do a disservice to their own warning or goals by greatly exaggerating the very near future threats. The threat so far as I can tell--at an apocalyptic level--arise in the long term. That is to say they will come not in the near future of 10, 20, or 100 years but much further down the line than that. Perhaps 1,000 or 10,000 years from now.

Nonetheless, the warnings may well be true that what humans do in the next 10 to 20 yrs. to resolve this dilemma will determine the fate of the earth, of humanity, of other life forms, and if our assault on the whole biosphere is irreversible or not.

So, a great part of the issues comes down to whether or not grown people, adults, will be selfish enough to support policies that condemn the future generations, children even 5,000 years from now, to a virtual hell on earth.





I don't think it does good on this issue to imagine the atmosphere as something totally "other" than the rest of the environment or in a sense all forms of life on earth.

The atmosphere is not unlike a lake or an ocean or perhaps the soil you walk on or attempt to grow your food in.

In a sense the air is pretty much like a glass of whiskey, the ice cubes in it, and the wood counter top it rests upon. The air is like our blood and teeth. These are just different forms, different combinations in various concentrations, of the smallest particles of the universe that create all worlds of matter. And none of them "disappear." They all are recycled. Like cosmic karma and rebirth. Rebirth of matter not souls into different lives. I'm not Buddhist, Hindu, or a member of Voodoo.

So, are aggregate (not so much one person's single behaviors or consumptions) behaviors and consumptions, their byproducts at the atomic level, a level invisible to our eyesight, impacts rivers, parks, and even the atmosphere.

The biosphere is our home. That means land, oceans, and the air. Just because humans with their social and political cultures draw up invisible lines saying this is where Mexico and Canada stops and the USA begins does not mean that the water systems and air of the earth intelligently agreed upon this.

Capitalism--or communism--ought not be treated as unquestionable religions by those that profess a faith in Christ. In a sense that is idolatry.

I don't think the world is overpopulated, nor do I think everyone needs to go back to living like primitive "tribal" Amerindians living in dirt huts. But certain geographical locations, with certain population densities, be approaching if not having reached their carrying capacity. And as living standards rise across the globe--as they should and hope they do--the human community on earth helped greatly by scientists and engineers will need to find some practical solutions for balancing high consumptions levels (relative to what they were in the 1700s) with environmental sustainability.

And we need to p with that plan sooner than later. Future generations depend upon it.

 

[Oafman]

If you are going to ignore what I posted and ignore my questions, then it's a wast of time talking to you. All your "lists" are addressed in Montford's book, which you will never read, but you will pat yourself on the back and claim that you know all the facts, when indeed you don't.

You asked one question (what my opinion was of a blog you linked to) and i answered that I don't take such blogs seriously. There is no review process for blogs, no way for experts to critique them, which is why they routinely spout nonsense.

And I'm not about to read a book on climate denial. Not because I have a closed mind, but because there are a thousand books in my 'to read' list, most of which will be well written and researched, which this is unlikely to be.

This is an internet debate. You don't get to say "ah read this book, then we can continue". Link to some reputable sources, in bite sized chunks which readers who are short on time can manage. And please, no more blogs. Alternatively, sum up the evidence (I use that term quite wrongly!) contained in the book, present it with links/references, and we'll all be able to consider it.

In the meantime, how many separate committees finding no fault will convince you that there was no fault?

 

[brewmama]

You asked one question (what my opinion was of a blog you linked to) and i answered that I don't take such blogs seriously. There is no review process for blogs, no way for experts to critique them, which is why they routinely spout nonsense.

And I'm not about to read a book on climate denial. Not because I have a closed mind, but because there are a thousand books in my 'to read' list, most of which will be well written and researched, which this is unlikely to be.

This is an internet debate. You don't get to say "ah read this book, then we can continue". Link to some reputable sources, in bite sized chunks which readers who are short on time can manage. And please, no more blogs. Alternatively, sum up the evidence (I use that term quite wrongly!) contained in the book, present it with links/references, and we'll all be able to consider it.

In the meantime, how many separate committees finding no fault will convince you that there was no fault?

No, my question was what did you think of the HARRY_READ_ME files. Not the blog.

I already addressed many of the complaints about the investigations in a previous post, but I can assure you that the book is very well documented and contains much more than I can address in posts on a forum.

 

[rambot]

It can best be summed up by the email that government chief scientist Sir John Beddington sent Ron Oxburgh (the man he had chosen to run the inquiry):

"Dear Ron,

Much appreciated the hard work put into the review, general view is that a blinder played. As we discussed at [the House of Lords], clearly the drinks are on me!

Best wishes,
John

Sure. I can understand that it would be best summed up that way. Because data and research that pertains to the ACTUAL debate can't be summed up in a soundbyte and easily digested by skeptics.

 

[brewmama]

Sure. I can understand that it would be best summed up that way. Because data and research that pertains to the ACTUAL debate can't be summed up in a soundbyte and easily digested by skeptics.

I gave specifics about what some if the concerns were, I guess you are ignoring them. It took a whole book to give forensic detail, but I'm sure you aren't really interested in it.

 

[Sistrin]

This is an internet debate. You don't get to say "ah read this book, then we can continue". Link to some reputable sources, in bite sized chunks which readers who are short on time can manage. And please, no more blogs. Alternatively, sum up the evidence (I use that term quite wrongly!) contained in the book, present it with links/references, and we'll all be able to consider it.

And if he does all of that my prediction is your position will not have changed one iota. You will still be right and everyone else to stupid to understand anything.

 

[Oafman]

And if he does all of that my prediction is your position will not have changed one iota. You will still be right and everyone else to stupid to understand anything.

You know, you're probably right.

Imagine an accountant/blogger wrote a book on neuroscience. This book was said to detail the way in which almost every neuroscientist was wrong about how the brain works. And worse, it claims that most of them knew they were wrong, but were involved in a global conspiracy to sweep under the carpet all data which showed they were wrong.

Imagine the book was reasonably well written, marshalled its arguments pretty well, focused on certain areas where it considered that the neuroscience community had been inconsistent, and generally seemed convincing to the layman.

Would you go against accepted neuroscience, having read this book? Would you refuse treatment if you had a brain injury? This is the position I am in with Montford's book, and why I won't read it.

So no, this book almost certainly would not make me change my mind. Like Montford, my opinion on climatology is as worthless as my opinion on neuroscience. But my insistence on listening to experts, rather than to quacks, bloggers and vested interest, is not worthless.

 

[brewmama]

You know, you're probably right.

Imagine an accountant/blogger wrote a book on neuroscience. This book was said to detail the way in which almost every neuroscientist was wrong about how the brain works. And worse, it claims that most of them knew they were wrong, but were involved in a global conspiracy to sweep under the carpet all data which showed they were wrong.

Imagine the book was reasonably well written, marshalled its arguments pretty well, focused on certain areas where it considered that the neuroscience community had been inconsistent, and generally seemed convincing to the layman.

Would you go against accepted neuroscience, having read this book? Would you refuse treatment if you had a brain injury? This is the position I am in with Montford's book, and why I won't read it.

So no, this book almost certainly would not make me change my mind. Like Montford, my opinion on climatology is as worthless as my opinion on neuroscience. But my insistence on listening to experts, rather than to quacks, bloggers and vested interest, is not worthless.

Since the book in question is specifically about what happened during the climategate "investigations", nothing more, your comment is totally off the mark, irrelevant, changing the subject, ad hom, and once again, not answering my questions.

 

[MachZer0]

Mach.
I'm not even asking you to change anything about your lifestyle. I'm just hopeful that facts and knowledge from people who are BEST informed would matter to you and display some consistensy with it skill.

Stop going to the doctors. Stop taking your car in to be repaired by professionals. Stop living in a house that an architect designed. Stop flying in airplanes.

Global warming is as much about power and control as the anti-vaxx movement.

Sorry but your argument doesn't follow. My doctor and my auto repair technician don't make decisions based on politics nor do they predict what is going to go wrong based on pseudoscience. So FAIL for that argument

 

[rambot]

Sorry but your argument doesn't follow. My doctor and my auto repair technician don't make decisions based on politics

Perfect! Neither do climatologists. I'm not sure how you're exception fits this situation.

nor do they predict what is going to go wrong based on pseudoscience. So FAIL for that argument

Well, here's the rub. I will challenge you to prove that claim and you simply will be unable to sustain a cogent argument. It happens every time. There's a great thread in the Physical Life Sciences where this bears out multiple times. We've had similar discussions.

So I challenge you to prove the pseudoscience in your own words.

 

[MachZer0]

Perfect! Neither do climatologists. I'm not sure how you're exception fits this situation.

Sadly they do and climate change is all about power and control

Well, here's the rub. I will challenge you to prove that claim and you simply will be unable to sustain a cogent argument. It happens every time. There's a great thread in the Physical Life Sciences where this bears out multiple times. We've had similar discussions.

So I challenge you to prove the pseudoscience in your own words.

I'm sorry but it is up to the claimant (global warming climatologists) to prove their claim. Here's one way we know they're running a scam. The global warming protagonists do not live as if global warming is true. They continue to use petroleum products, coal energy, etc. When they actually live as though climate change is real and can be reversed or even slowed, then others will take note. I won't be holding my breath

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If you are going to ignore what I posted and ignore my questions, then it's a wast of time talking to you. All your "lists" are addressed in Montford's book, which you will never read, but you will pat yourself on the back and claim that you know all the facts, when indeed you don't.

Maybe you should address my post instead of ignoring it and deflecting.

If you want to actually delve into this, then respond to my post.