3 ms·
Well, you tell me. Why would the manually produced, subsequently "adjusted" thermometer data be trumpeted so that everyone is announcing that 2014 was the hotte
by jayess 12y ago
Well, you tell me. Why would the manually produced, subsequently "adjusted" thermometer data be trumpeted so that everyone is announcing that 2014 was the hottest ever, when the satellite record shows no such thing?
What would you do if your livelihood depended on towing the company line?
I've looked at the data local to me for the stations that are rural and have had no development. The raw data shows no warming. The adjusted data suddenly shows warming.
My view is that it's just odd to emphasize the error-proned data over the more reliable data for dramatic effect. That's not science. And when governments and media just pick it up and run with it, it weirds me out.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- beat 12y agoDoes every climate scientist's livelihood depend on repeating a lie that they know to be a lie? Do you think that little of professional scientists? People don't go into hard science to get rich. They do it because they're obsessed with the truth. And career advancement, such as it is, happens not from "towing the company line", but rather from breakthroughs that directly challenge the conventional wisdom. That's how science works in social terms. So you have the rewards exactly backwards. If the facts are truly against climate change, then scientists who use the facts to question climate change would be rewarded for it, not punished!
- cholantesh 12y agoThe salaries afforded to lobbyists and spin doctors in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, on the other hand...