AGW: The Fiddling with Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever

Why does the title of this threads say "AGW". Its actually questioning the rather uncontroversial position that global warming is happening, not whether it is principally caused by humans.

Good question, but this led me to another question. If the writer of this article was trustworthy, why would he not simply ask the scientists this question and present their answer. He could still explain why their answer doesn't work or is insufficient, but at least present what the other side has to say.

 

Holy crap, that was easy. I'll let you guess who I am talking about.

Don't be quite so melodramatic.

The Reptiles live in caves and stuff, dude. Underlords?

 

Yes because the sources you use are political hacks with an agenda and either you dont want to see it or you already know it and are happily being a tool.

 

What a tool. How about actually posting the piece, which talks about the decreasing number of places that are cold enough and get enough snow to host a Winter Olympics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0

 

And besides, none of those websites used animated GIFs so how can they be credible?

 

It probably is too late, I can't the US making dramatic changes in energy policies much less a billion Chinese and a billion Indians trying to enjoy the benefits of high energy useage. Canadian corporations won't slow down on tar sands, palm oil producers will slash and burn Rain Forests, and who knows what the Russians are doing to produce as much oil and gas as they can. We are exploding with population growth in the parts of the world that still need basic infrastructure.

Your kids will see some ****.

 

When the oceans rise about 20 feet from now, conservatives will blame scientists for not having spoken up loudly. They will say "see how horrible science is in forecasting and warning us!"

 

Sad thing is y'all are probably right. We have likely already passed the tipping point where anything can be done to stop the trend.

 

IT seems like it isn't about people who disagree with you ignoring evidence. But your unwillingness to comment on the debunking of evidence you brought forward.

In other words you seem mad that they didn't buy into the shaky evidence you did, and so you start calling names and refused to address any of the counterpoints made.

You're the one who's shutting down discussion here, not anyone else. You can do that if you wish, it's up to you. But don't try and pretend the other side is the bad guy for being a little more critical of what you present than you were when it was presented to you

 

I'd like to throw in my opinion here:

I am skeptical about global warming. I won't deny it, but I don't think anyone has made a compelling argument that proves 1) we are responsible, 2) we can stop it, 3) it's happening at such an alarming rate.

The hysteria seems to be focused on the computer model predictions, which are consistently wrong. Not just wrong, but SERIOUSLY wrong. We were supposed to be underwater years ago, remember?

As for this particular data, I watched the video and for those of you who didn't, this is what it basically said:

The data from those locations were pulled from weather stations and, apparently, the equipment wasn't always calibrated correctly and therefore they had to retroactively adjust the temperatures to match what other stations in the area were displaying.

It's a convenient explanation that might very well be true, but I don't see how anyone can take that video and accept it as fact without vetting it, which I see many of you doing. You're attacking Mojo for trusting one source, but you all are doing the same with this random video.

I just don't think we know enough about the Earth's climate to make predictions about events 100 years from now. We can't get the short-term predictions right, but we're supposed to trust the long-term predictions as certain-fact? I can't do that, sorry.

 

or more to the point, you're prepared to deny it and oppose any relief jsut because, regardless of being proved wrong in the past. Even if you're proved wrong on 1 (which you have been, but not worht getting into) - you've already decided that it's unfix-able (2) and that it's not a problem in any event (3).

Basically, the deniers are right according to you no matter how mutually exclusive the various positions are - and being proven wrong on one causes literally zero introspection for you, because you know that the deniers, based on some set of facts or some theory, must be right. Just...because.

 

Sam, are you utterly incapable of having a conversation without coming off as a demeaning ass-hole? Seriously -- you're kind of a deuche.

My point actually was that climate-scientists have been SERIOUSLY wrong on their predictions, and most of their case relies on computer models, which have been consistently wrong.

The deniers have been wrong about things to, therefore I do not deny that global warming doesn't exist, but I refuse to accept something that hasn't actually been proved. I think it deserves debate, and liberals don't seem to like arguing about things they steadfastly support.

I fully expect you to insult me for disagreeing with you, because that's your style. I'll just put you on ignore so that I never have to see your pathetic attacks against anyone and anything that doesn't agree with you. Have a nice day, child.

 

Depends, which of your previous accounts did you use to have a conversation with me? I can check to see the demeanitude in them.

 

Thank you.

This really advanced the discussion and proved your point.

 

This is exactly right. A couple of weeks ago, scientists could not come within 10 inches of the amount of snowfall that New York City would receive the very next day. Someone's going to ask me to pay more in taxes and sacrifice electrical grid reliability for a weather forecast decades into the future? It's nonsense.

Not a single person reading this can list a single negative impact that global warming has had on their life. It's impossible. The cost-benefit analysis is impossible. Additionally, all of the global warmists' forecasts have been wrong, and their data has been fudged. So how are we supposed to support this crazy bad religion? This is why the majority of Americans do not support global warming.

Democrats are way off base focusing on issues like global warming, vaccines, and gay marriage. These are not Americans' priorities.

 

I'm sorry, but I didn't read further after this. This is false. The other recent CC thread have a number of url links to studies that said this is not just false, but completely wrong. Google on it will also yield those studies. If you can get pass this, than we can have a conversation on your other points. But you need to educate yourself. You have wrong info and you bought into them.

 

I won't go so far as to say the data has been "fudged" or that this isn't a topic worthy of serious discussion. For one, according to the video posted by (I forget who without going back to look), the data was adjusted because the equipment wasn't calibrated correctly. We don't know if this is a legit excuse, but at least it's an explanation.

I do think that many Americans support global warming (or believe it's happening rather) mainly because Democrats continue to talk about it as if it is pure fact. The oft-repeat the '97%' line, when in fact that number has been argued and cherry picked.

You're entirely correct in asserting that Democrats over-focus on global warming, vaccines, and gay marriage, though. Obama's recent comments about how terrorism shouldn't be talked about more than global warming in the news is indicative of this administration's alternate reality.

I'm happy to look more into it, I don't really study this issue very often I just read things here and there (from both sides of the argument). If you have something in particular you think I should check, please share it, but I'm sorry, I don't believe you are correct that I am completely wrong on this. The hysteria CERTAINLY comes from the model predictions, everything else is just data. That data means nothing unless you put it into some kind of formula to make meaning of it.

 

That really said it all. You don't know much about this. If you don't know it, you shouldn't be convinced of anything, either sides of it but I would still think you would side with Scientists as a default position given the amount of evidences and consensus. But when you are bought into something as simple as "model is soooo wrong" and the other statements you made, I'm sorry, but I think you are hearing from one side too much and wanting to believe it. Anyway, everything is available, you can study up on it. Here are two posts from the other CC threads on models.

I won't be replying to this or any CC threads much anymore. B-Bob is a wise man. I should have followed this direction a long time ago.

 

You have to consider that the predictions are within a range and most have been within that range. I'm no aware of any serious predictions that said we are supposed to be underwater that said things like sea levels rising has occurred. Further glaciers disappearing and we are seeing a change in flora in fauna in temperate and arctic regions.

Actually I raised a few questions regarding the video and the methodology which other posters provided more information. So it has been vetted further. I will point out that the OP didn't and pretty much refused to respond substantively too it and instead became petulant.

Many continue to confuse climate with weather. It is true weather is inherently unpredictable but climate trends can be extrapolated over time. This is akin to what we see in polling for elections. Where a politician might poll at any given day in any particular poll the exact number isn't that predictable because there are so many small things that might affect the number. Looking over the course of the campaign though trends can be extrapolated. Consider the last presidential election where while day to day Romney might've been up, Obama might've been up, but taking all of the evidence a week out from the election the overall trend was Obama victory. The science behind climate uses some of the same statistical tools.

Anyway for those who criticize the weather forecast by what happened in NY two weeks ago consider the weather forecast for that storm was actually remarkably right for the amount of snow New England got. NYC was off because the storm center was 50 miles off. Given a storm front that is covers thousands of square miles those predictions weren't that far off.