7 ms·

Yeah, we get a lot of that sort of claim in Australia, where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic

Yeah, we get a lot of that sort of claim in Australia, where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic (it might not be a surprising coincidence that a lot of the major political donors to these parties have made billions from coal mining and natural gas extraction). We have media commentators and even members of parliament (!) actively trying to discredit our Bureau of Meteorology, pulling up newspaper reports and people's anecdotes of slightly higher temperatures recorded decades ago than records that have been broken just recently. It doesn't seem to a lot of these people to be a good argument that 1) thermometers weren't as accurately calibrated then as they were today, and 2) an observed temperature at your grandfather's farm that was taken from a thermometer hanging under a tin roof that was radiating heat at it isn't up to the standard of the official figures! Anyway, so at the end of the day it's extremely controversial that the official figures have been adjusted based on measured deviations between the technology used at the time and the more accurate measuring devices used today.

thu2111 6y ago
Of course, they see it the other way around, that it's the non-conservative side of politics that made it polarising. That's the nature of polarity ;) The adjustments to the historical temperature record are an under-discussed topic IMO. Most people don't know they occur. The justifications are by the way not that thermometers were inaccurately calibrated in the 1930s. Thermometer technology is very old. If there are datasets being adjusted that way, that's a new reason that I haven't seen when reviewing this controversy myself. The justifications are, at least for the USA, more like: 1. A claim that people before the 1980s didn't know how to use min/max thermometers and read them/reset them at the wrong time of day. So climatologists have a thing called time of observation bias adjustment, which supposedly corrects for this. 2. Thermometers got moved around over time, so they apply 'homogenization' algorithms to invent readings for thermometer locations that no longer exist 3. Thermometers often had gaps in their readings, so again, they interpolate readings that 'should' have happened from nearby thermometers. Because the thermometer network is getting older with time, the amount of interpolated data keeps going up. For instance the standard US thermometer network used for all American temperature timeseries now has >60% interpolated data generated by a model, they're not raw readings, because there's been so much movement over time. The counter-arguments are: 1. It's unscientific to quietly alter your data to fit your theories. If there are doubts about the accuracy of the readings, you are meant to add error bars and incorporate that into your uncertainty, not just publish new versions of historical timeseries like climatologists do. 2. The historical justification for TOB existing is not very strong. There's an assumption that people back then didn't know how to use min/max thermometers correctly, but there's not much in the historical record to actually support this claim, which is an odd one because, again, thermometers are an old technology and people were making records of temperature for a long time. A min/max thermometer is not a complex device. 3. Putting aside the fact that again, supposedly raw scientific datasets aren't meant to have interpolated data points in them, homogenization might make sense in the USA where there was a large and well resourced thermometer network throughout the 20th century. But that's not true for the rest of the world, which was busy being wracked by multiple world wars, communist insurrections, 3rd world poverty and so on. Temperature data outside the USA for much of the 20th century is quite sparse and not very high quality, especially as people didn't really care about global warming until the 1970s/1980s. 4. Climatologists have continually adjusted raw temperature readings in new dataset versions even for very recent measurements, like measurements taken in the 21st century. These adjustments always strengthen the case for global warming, they never produce contradictory evidence. So there is a risk of a file-drawer problem, where now the precedent was set that adjusting historical data is accepted, people keep trying different adjustments with different explanations and end up discarding the ones that would reduce the perceived threat.
- rrrazdan 6y ago
  I found your argument cogent though without sources to back it up, hard to believe. I do not know why you are being downvoted though. Would it be possible to include sources around what you are claiming?
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    Here's an overview of the adjustments that get made to climate data, from a "it doesn't really affect the overall trends you dumb skeptics" point of view: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-a... And here's a more skeptical source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-tempe...
    - TylerE 6y ago
      Calling watts up “skeptical” is like calling holocaust deniers history skeptics. It’s blatant propaganda. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
    - hokkos 6y ago
      Skeptics means climate change denialist in your context.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        No it doesn't. Very few "climate change skeptics" deny the climate changes. That's a very weak position and changes can be easily seen in almost any data set. Climate change denialism is a strawman position, designed specifically to sound extreme in order to stop people getting curious and investigating the real beliefs of these bloggers.
  - 6y ago
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic Not to side with either part, but it always takes two to tango...
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  That doesn't seem right. It takes only one group to twist the narrative into something that it doesn't have to be. "There's a virus that's killing people, based up on the current evidence we should all wear masks in an effort to stop it." "You're trampling on my freedoms by asking that I wear a mask." The first is an objective statement of fact, the second is twisting the message - it can easily get politicized without needing two parties to sink to that level. Now the first has to either engage or try to ignore it, but either way it'll continue to be politicized.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    The second statement is also a fact: wearing a mask violates people's freedom. Balancing safety and freedom is an ages old question.
    - padseeker 6y ago
      No one complains when a store posts the sign "no shoes no shirt no service" No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" But there are an awful lot of complaints and concerns and discussions about freedom from people when asked to wear a mask, at least indoors. The problem is pretty simple - the oft used phrase "it should't be a partisan or political issue" is irrelevant because when one side the argument bases their beliefs strictly on the fact that they don't like the other side and will oppose everything not based on the merits of arguments and information but rather that they hate the other side, then EVERYTHING becomes partisan.
      - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

thu2111 6y ago

Of course, they see it the other way around, that it's the non-conservative side of politics that made it polarising. That's the nature of polarity ;) The adjustments to the historical temperature record are an under-discussed topic IMO. Most people don't know they occur. The justifications are by the way not that thermometers were inaccurately calibrated in the 1930s. Thermometer technology is very old. If there are datasets being adjusted that way, that's a new reason that I haven't seen when reviewing this controversy myself. The justifications are, at least for the USA, more like: 1. A claim that people before the 1980s didn't know how to use min/max thermometers and read them/reset them at the wrong time of day. So climatologists have a thing called time of observation bias adjustment, which supposedly corrects for this. 2. Thermometers got moved around over time, so they apply 'homogenization' algorithms to invent readings for thermometer locations that no longer exist 3. Thermometers often had gaps in their readings, so again, they interpolate readings that 'should' have happened from nearby thermometers. Because the thermometer network is getting older with time, the amount of interpolated data keeps going up. For instance the standard US thermometer network used for all American temperature timeseries now has >60% interpolated data generated by a model, they're not raw readings, because there's been so much movement over time. The counter-arguments are: 1. It's unscientific to quietly alter your data to fit your theories. If there are doubts about the accuracy of the readings, you are meant to add error bars and incorporate that into your uncertainty, not just publish new versions of historical timeseries like climatologists do. 2. The historical justification for TOB existing is not very strong. There's an assumption that people back then didn't know how to use min/max thermometers correctly, but there's not much in the historical record to actually support this claim, which is an odd one because, again, thermometers are an old technology and people were making records of temperature for a long time. A min/max thermometer is not a complex device. 3. Putting aside the fact that again, supposedly raw scientific datasets aren't meant to have interpolated data points in them, homogenization might make sense in the USA where there was a large and well resourced thermometer network throughout the 20th century. But that's not true for the rest of the world, which was busy being wracked by multiple world wars, communist insurrections, 3rd world poverty and so on. Temperature data outside the USA for much of the 20th century is quite sparse and not very high quality, especially as people didn't really care about global warming until the 1970s/1980s. 4. Climatologists have continually adjusted raw temperature readings in new dataset versions even for very recent measurements, like measurements taken in the 21st century. These adjustments always strengthen the case for global warming, they never produce contradictory evidence. So there is a risk of a file-drawer problem, where now the precedent was set that adjusting historical data is accepted, people keep trying different adjustments with different explanations and end up discarding the ones that would reduce the perceived threat.

rrrazdan 6y ago
I found your argument cogent though without sources to back it up, hard to believe. I do not know why you are being downvoted though. Would it be possible to include sources around what you are claiming?
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Here's an overview of the adjustments that get made to climate data, from a "it doesn't really affect the overall trends you dumb skeptics" point of view: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-a... And here's a more skeptical source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-tempe...
  - TylerE 6y ago
    Calling watts up “skeptical” is like calling holocaust deniers history skeptics. It’s blatant propaganda. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
  - hokkos 6y ago
    Skeptics means climate change denialist in your context.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      No it doesn't. Very few "climate change skeptics" deny the climate changes. That's a very weak position and changes can be easily seen in almost any data set. Climate change denialism is a strawman position, designed specifically to sound extreme in order to stop people getting curious and investigating the real beliefs of these bloggers.
- 6y ago

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

> where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic Not to side with either part, but it always takes two to tango...

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
That doesn't seem right. It takes only one group to twist the narrative into something that it doesn't have to be. "There's a virus that's killing people, based up on the current evidence we should all wear masks in an effort to stop it." "You're trampling on my freedoms by asking that I wear a mask." The first is an objective statement of fact, the second is twisting the message - it can easily get politicized without needing two parties to sink to that level. Now the first has to either engage or try to ignore it, but either way it'll continue to be politicized.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  The second statement is also a fact: wearing a mask violates people's freedom. Balancing safety and freedom is an ages old question.
  - padseeker 6y ago
    No one complains when a store posts the sign "no shoes no shirt no service" No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" But there are an awful lot of complaints and concerns and discussions about freedom from people when asked to wear a mask, at least indoors. The problem is pretty simple - the oft used phrase "it should't be a partisan or political issue" is irrelevant because when one side the argument bases their beliefs strictly on the fact that they don't like the other side and will oppose everything not based on the merits of arguments and information but rather that they hate the other side, then EVERYTHING becomes partisan.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago