4 ms·

Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal

11 points by itbeho 12y ago

briandear 12y ago
Global warming has approached religion. If you already believe the AGW premise, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you. Interestingly, Obama, during the 2008 campaign admitted that he believed autism and vaccines were connected, which has never been proven and in fact, discredited. Is it possible the President and thus the executive branch policies resulting, are wrong or more insidiously, knowingly wrong about global warming? After all, controlling carbon output means that you control every industry and every nook and cranny of the entire economy. I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' Did scientists just not notice the data from the past 100 years? Or, was that data not showing a warming trend until communism suddenly collapsed? Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti-carbon crowd.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  Excellent comment. I posted a comment on a recent HN post discussing an article by Scott Adams. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8986916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8986916 I am wary of "science" pronouncements and I am not an easily smeared anti-vaxxer or religious nut. There is a lot of dishonesty in the global warming debate, including changing the name to "climate change".
  - dalke 12y ago
    When you say there was a dishonest name change, are you referring to Frank Luntz, the Republican political strategist, who suggested in http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.p... that Republicans use the term "climate change" over "global warming" because it's less 'frightening' to voters? "While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge." Because outside of that political motivated effort, there's no real name change that I know of, and even then, that's only a bias. These are, after all, two different but related phenomena, and not interchangable terms. As http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warmin... , points out, the Google n-grams chart given, at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming... , shows that both terms have about equally long histories, with "global warming" overtaking "climate change" only in the early 1990s. It also cites papers from the 1950s onward which used "climate change" and points out that the IPCC, which started in 1988, is the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", with "Climate Change" directly in the name, so any concerted name change would have had to occur decades ago. Can you tell me more about this dishonest name change? When did it take place, and how do you know it exists?
- Coding_Cat 12y ago
  >I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s. Which is about as early as you could gather statistically significant data [1]. It did not garner widespread public attention immediately, as is to be expected. Interesting that you should point out that the mainstream attention only appeared after the end of the cold war, perhaps politicians and journalists where otherwise occupied during that time? > Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti-carbon crowd. The means of production? you mean the carbohydrate-based power used to drive everything we use that absolutely dominated western politics, both economic, foreign, and domestic for many a decade? Or do you mean the new, and relatively small, green power market? Which is, bare a few outcrops, still dominated by the old oil-industry based companies. Be it by investing in alternatives directly or by buying out competing start-ups. [1] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
  - at-fates-hands 12y ago
    >>>> It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s. The reason it took so long was that scientists couldn't agree whether the Earth was cooling or warming. In the 1960's and 70's they were sure it was cooling. http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.... "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Another interesting video from the Leonard Nimoy series "In Search Of" about the coming Ice Age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw By the 1990's apparently all the evidence suddenly shifted and then it was then shown the Earth was warming. It would seem the scientific community can't seem to get one consensus as to whether it is cooling or warming.
- dalke 12y ago
  > I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' "A 'thing'" usually implies widespread general discussion. "Scientists" is only a subset of people. Scientists could well have noticed the trend long before it became a "thing" in the general public. Here's Asimov in 1989 talking about the discussion of the greenhouse effect, as the "most interesting scientific event of 1988." http://climate.nasa.gov/blog?m_y=01-2011 http://climate.nasa.gov/blog?m_y=01-2011 . In addition, Asimov says "I had been talking about the greenhouse effect for 20 years at least. And there are other people who talked about it before I did. I mean I didn’t invent it." This lecture takes place before the sudden collapse of Communism. And here's Asimov in 1977 talking about the greenhouse effect in a CBC interview - http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/climate-change/turning-up-the-heat-four-decades-of-climate-change/why-is-it-called-the-greenhouse-effect.html http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/climate-ch... . It mentions discussion about some scientists who were worried about the effect of SST (supersonic transport) on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, no, it isn't the case that scientists had only noticed the data in the 1990s, nor that it wasn't a "thing" until the 1990s, nor that it postdates the collapse of communism.
Coding_Cat 12y ago
A whole lot of words for very little actual content. For one the article recognizes that there has been a response from the opposite party saying: "the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known." emphasis mine. To me this means that GHCN and Giss did put forward arguments as to why the data was modified, however instead of showing the reader these arguments (and why he believes them to be implausible) he simply dismisses them. And frankly, the rest of the article is a devoid of information as the above. There is a whole lot of name-dropping, and name-calling ("James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist)"), but no where does he put up any actual references or data to back-up his claims. I do not have the time to dive into literature and dissect his points one by one (again, he does not offer any references or concrete data so that would be difficult anyway), however his song sounds very familiar. Scientists adjust their data to ignore known cyclical effects: they're manipulating the facts! Scientists don't adjust their data: they're ignoring history to suit their agenda! And slightly off-topic, what are so many Americans doing in the comment section of a UK newspaper? And why are people ranting about Obamacare on an article about climate change?
- briandear 12y ago
  The UK papers are among the few English language papers that are willing to report on this issue. It's almost ignored by outlets like the NY Times unless it fits the narrative. You hardly ever see any contrarian stories published by the NY Times. As far as Obamacare, I didn't read the comments, however the government control of 1/5 of the US economy (health) is analogous to the attempted government control of the entire economy through anti-carbon initiatives. It's a debate of the role of government and 'climate change' legislation is but one part of it. However that being said, there are a bunch of nutcases that seem to spew spittle at their screen anytime the government is mentioned. But, given the alarming track record of government overreach (i.e. NSA surveillance of everything, civil asset forfeiture, etc,) their apparent tin foil hats do seem to have a basis in some reality.
  - glomph 12y ago
glomph 12y ago
Headline news: Climate change deniers have blogs!

11 points by itbeho 12y ago

Global warming has approached religion. If you already believe the AGW premise, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you. Interestingly, Obama, during the 2008 campaign admitted that he believed autism and vaccines were connected, which has never been proven and in fact, discredited. Is it possible the President and thus the executive branch policies resulting, are wrong or more insidiously, knowingly wrong about global warming? After all, controlling carbon output means that you control every industry and every nook and cranny of the entire economy. I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' Did scientists just not notice the data from the past 100 years? Or, was that data not showing a warming trend until communism suddenly collapsed? Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti-carbon crowd.

dmfdmf 12y ago
Excellent comment. I posted a comment on a recent HN post discussing an article by Scott Adams. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8986916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8986916 I am wary of "science" pronouncements and I am not an easily smeared anti-vaxxer or religious nut. There is a lot of dishonesty in the global warming debate, including changing the name to "climate change".
- dalke 12y ago
  When you say there was a dishonest name change, are you referring to Frank Luntz, the Republican political strategist, who suggested in http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.p... that Republicans use the term "climate change" over "global warming" because it's less 'frightening' to voters? "While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge." Because outside of that political motivated effort, there's no real name change that I know of, and even then, that's only a bias. These are, after all, two different but related phenomena, and not interchangable terms. As http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warmin... , points out, the Google n-grams chart given, at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming... , shows that both terms have about equally long histories, with "global warming" overtaking "climate change" only in the early 1990s. It also cites papers from the 1950s onward which used "climate change" and points out that the IPCC, which started in 1988, is the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", with "Climate Change" directly in the name, so any concerted name change would have had to occur decades ago. Can you tell me more about this dishonest name change? When did it take place, and how do you know it exists?
Coding_Cat 12y ago
>I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s. Which is about as early as you could gather statistically significant data [1]. It did not garner widespread public attention immediately, as is to be expected. Interesting that you should point out that the mainstream attention only appeared after the end of the cold war, perhaps politicians and journalists where otherwise occupied during that time? > Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti-carbon crowd. The means of production? you mean the carbohydrate-based power used to drive everything we use that absolutely dominated western politics, both economic, foreign, and domestic for many a decade? Or do you mean the new, and relatively small, green power market? Which is, bare a few outcrops, still dominated by the old oil-industry based companies. Be it by investing in alternatives directly or by buying out competing start-ups. [1] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>>> It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s. The reason it took so long was that scientists couldn't agree whether the Earth was cooling or warming. In the 1960's and 70's they were sure it was cooling. http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.... "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Another interesting video from the Leonard Nimoy series "In Search Of" about the coming Ice Age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw By the 1990's apparently all the evidence suddenly shifted and then it was then shown the Earth was warming. It would seem the scientific community can't seem to get one consensus as to whether it is cooling or warming.
dalke 12y ago
> I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' "A 'thing'" usually implies widespread general discussion. "Scientists" is only a subset of people. Scientists could well have noticed the trend long before it became a "thing" in the general public. Here's Asimov in 1989 talking about the discussion of the greenhouse effect, as the "most interesting scientific event of 1988." http://climate.nasa.gov/blog?m_y=01-2011 http://climate.nasa.gov/blog?m_y=01-2011 . In addition, Asimov says "I had been talking about the greenhouse effect for 20 years at least. And there are other people who talked about it before I did. I mean I didn’t invent it." This lecture takes place before the sudden collapse of Communism. And here's Asimov in 1977 talking about the greenhouse effect in a CBC interview - http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/climate-change/turning-up-the-heat-four-decades-of-climate-change/why-is-it-called-the-greenhouse-effect.html http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/climate-ch... . It mentions discussion about some scientists who were worried about the effect of SST (supersonic transport) on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, no, it isn't the case that scientists had only noticed the data in the 1990s, nor that it wasn't a "thing" until the 1990s, nor that it postdates the collapse of communism.

Coding_Cat 12y ago

A whole lot of words for very little actual content. For one the article recognizes that there has been a response from the opposite party saying: "the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known." emphasis mine. To me this means that GHCN and Giss did put forward arguments as to why the data was modified, however instead of showing the reader these arguments (and why he believes them to be implausible) he simply dismisses them. And frankly, the rest of the article is a devoid of information as the above. There is a whole lot of name-dropping, and name-calling ("James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist)"), but no where does he put up any actual references or data to back-up his claims. I do not have the time to dive into literature and dissect his points one by one (again, he does not offer any references or concrete data so that would be difficult anyway), however his song sounds very familiar. Scientists adjust their data to ignore known cyclical effects: they're manipulating the facts! Scientists don't adjust their data: they're ignoring history to suit their agenda! And slightly off-topic, what are so many Americans doing in the comment section of a UK newspaper? And why are people ranting about Obamacare on an article about climate change?

briandear 12y ago
The UK papers are among the few English language papers that are willing to report on this issue. It's almost ignored by outlets like the NY Times unless it fits the narrative. You hardly ever see any contrarian stories published by the NY Times. As far as Obamacare, I didn't read the comments, however the government control of 1/5 of the US economy (health) is analogous to the attempted government control of the entire economy through anti-carbon initiatives. It's a debate of the role of government and 'climate change' legislation is but one part of it. However that being said, there are a bunch of nutcases that seem to spew spittle at their screen anytime the government is mentioned. But, given the alarming track record of government overreach (i.e. NSA surveillance of everything, civil asset forfeiture, etc,) their apparent tin foil hats do seem to have a basis in some reality.
- glomph 12y ago

glomph 12y ago

Headline news: Climate change deniers have blogs!