

Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal - itbeho
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

======
Coding_Cat
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
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
The telegraph should not be considered a reputable newspaper.

------
briandear
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.

~~~
Coding_Cat
>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
>>>> 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....](http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-
proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html)

 _" 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.

------
glomph
Headline news: Climate change deniers have blogs!

