3 ms·
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. ClimateGate was about the quality of evidence for early global warming studies. It claimed that scientists were hiding ba
by brutusborn 3y ago
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. ClimateGate was about the quality of evidence for early global warming studies. It claimed that scientists were hiding bad data and evidence that their models had problems.
This seems very similar: models missing data and forcing but not being criticised when they miss a once in a century confirmation event.
- jonathankoren 3y agoNo. The “scandal” was they were hiding evidence of cooling. If you don’t remember, read the article. Look at who promoted it. Literally no one promoting that bullshit believed that models were underreporting the effects and causes climate change.
- brutusborn 3y agoThe hiding of cooling was implied in the problems in the data/models. It’s a moot point really, the scientists did some dodgy stuff, whether they were exaggerating warming or hiding cooling doesn’t make much difference to their integrity.
- roneythomas6 3y agoHow could cooling be implied from climategate leaks, when climategate deniers where saying "There is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change."?
- brutusborn 3y agoIf the leaks show that some models and data were ignored that show cooling then you can imply that they were hiding cooling. You can also imply that their warming models and data reconstructions were not very accurate. Either way many climate scientists have a history of shadiness, just look at all the Dr Mann lawsuits pending.