Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer everything north of latitude 65 degrees."
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather.
Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."
Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.
Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.
They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia — a high-altitude, landlocked country — but instead "interpolates" or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from "nearby" temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
The revelations come only two months after the "climategate" scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails — private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain — showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
And this was in the comments section. I wonder if someone who has the time and knowledge double check this gentleman's statement. snowmaneasy
January 22, 2010 - 9:33 AM Flag this as Inappropriate
"There may be something in this story...as I have been checking the temp data for Smithers, Central BC..I have plotted all the data back to 1949...you can check it yourself on the Environment Canada website...just go to the archives for BC and then for Smithers and download the data into excel....as for all of these issues you have to check it yourself.
Well, I plotted it all in excel and lo and behold no warming can be seen after 1998. In fact from 1998 to the end of 2009 there is in fact a decline (cooling)"
If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
And this?
"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low....
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
I'd like for all of the data that the IPCC has access to, to be made public, for the past and from this day forward.
That goes for NASA and NOAA too. (The IPCC glacier gaff/manipulation, that they would be gone in a few years was actually up on the NASA site until a couple of days ago. How in the hell could NASA make such an un-researched error? I'm stunned at their incompetence and/or agenda.)
We fund these groups, we should see the results.
Did anyone watch the D'Aleo video?
He makes some very valid points and raises excellent questions.
I do agree with Richard, in a nutshell, you either have very good reasons to believe what you do, or you don't.
Unfortunately, people rarely follow up on the rebuttals. The smear sticks (and confirmed what they already believed/wanted to be true, i.e. wide scaled fraud and conspiracy).
The comparison with another branch of science, the theory of evolution, is uncanny. It doesn't do too well in the same of court of the unwashed and unread masses, even after being established more than 150 years ago.
So,let us say that the worst scenario is at hand,,what should we do ? That is what I think is worth pondering over.
First, we need to objectively look at all of the data and determine what that scenario looks like and how likely it may be.
Second, what, if anything, we can do to negate any warming or cooling.
Third, get the politicians/criminals out of the way. I still say it is as simple as voting them out and holding them accountable.
Sadly, I have my doubts if we're smart enough to do this.
In conversation, most people I've spoken to, aren't really open to new and sufficient data. Minds are made up, case closed, put the bad guys in charge.
Of course this is all in the name of saving the planet.
Raping and pillaging the masses by government and crony capitalism is nothing new. You would think that we're smart enough to spot this scam from a mile away. Obviously not.
Why intelligent people have problems with political and religious delusion is something that baffles/frustrates me.....
If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.
hazze, we know the climate has been changing for about 4.5 billion years, both warming and cooling.
I'm personally not disputing that.,,,,Cool !
There are three sides to this issue.,,,well,,no need to argue here
Those that are sure that global warming is man made. ,,so who cares,if we can agree that the Planet is getting warmer and we are in peril,should we not be acting ? Those that are sure that global warming is not man made.
And then those who want to look at all of the best evidence available before making a decision. (I'm in this camp.)
For the most part, all I see here is the government's position, which is obviously anthropogenic, and we must tax you for it.,,,
This is why I try and post at least some counter point, hopefully to get people interested in looking at both sides. I
I want to see all of the evidence available and how is was produced., At that point we can see what is credible, and what isn't.
All I'm arguing for is making an informed decision.,,,to do WHAT ??
When the solution is taking your money by force, sending it off to unaccountable bankers and politicians (World Bank, IMF), and setting up a carbon credit derivatives scheme with the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase, etc., this sends up a giant red flag.
I'm not in the habit of supporting/enabling criminals, period.,,,very hard not to these days
If you show me someone who isn't concerned about this action, I'll show you some one that hasn't thought this whole issue through.
Please dig the players involved (including all of the government agencies) and follow the money, who gives and who gets.
This will be the biggest transfer of wealth/money/assets in the history of the planet, so don't take it lightly. oh I am not,,the ones that takes this lightly is the ones defending their purses and don't give a **** bout the future ! Please be realistic about what people will do for money, power and control of the planet and all of its residents. What does history say on the subject?,,,,time to leave the Planet ??
Trust and credibility are key.
Regards
So,let us say that the worst scenario is at hand,,what should we do ? That is what I think is worth pondering over.
,,,here's an idea ;Why not ask the Big Bucks to pay some guys to do just that,oh wait, they are already doing that,paying guys to come up with ,,THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING !
hazze, we know the climate has been changing for about 4.5 billion years, both warming and cooling.
I'm personally not disputing that.
There are three sides to this issue.
Those that are sure that global warming is man made.
Those that are sure that global warming is not man made.
And then those who want to look at all of the best evidence available before making a decision. (I'm in this camp.)
For the most part, all I see here is the government's position, which is obviously anthropogenic, and we must tax you for it.
This is why I try and post at least some counter point, hopefully to get people interested in looking at both sides.
I want to see all of the evidence available and how is was produced.
At that point we can see what is credible, and what isn't.
All I'm arguing for is making an informed decision.
When the solution is taking your money by force, sending it off to unaccountable bankers and politicians (World Bank, IMF), and setting up a carbon credit derivatives scheme with the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase, etc., this sends up a giant red flag.
I'm not in the habit of supporting/enabling criminals, period.
If you show me someone who isn't concerned about this action, I'll show you some one that hasn't thought this whole issue through.
Please dig the players involved (including all of the government agencies) and follow the money, who gives and who gets.
This will be the biggest transfer of wealth/money/assets in the history of the planet, so don't take it lightly.
Please be realistic about what people will do for money, power and control of the planet and all of its residents.
Isn't it high time that all of the data (and the means and methods used by all) laid out for peer review?
,,,here's an idea ;Why not ask the Big Bucks to pay some guys to do just that,oh wait, they are already doing that,paying guys to come up with ,,THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING !
I don't need or seek your trust. You've already done a helluva good job in questioning my veracity. I don't need to further defend myself to you or anyone else in this forum. You can make your own decisions as you see me and as you see fit. I am powerless to disuade you of any false notions. Again, with the self-proclaimed. Whatever...I know how my bread is buttered. As for peer review in your circle...would that mean having those who peer into water droplets, practice phrenology, mindlessly sift through sand, ponder navel lint or gaze at cows chewing their cud, weigh in on what it is I do? Your circle can no more qualify me than my associates or friends could certify whatever it is you do...something in the mystical arena if I recall? Spiritual, perhaps? Since I have no idea what you do, I won't cast aspersions on your standards or abilities. Shame I can't say you return that in kind. Worse shame yet, you can't say it. I am not sold on global warming/climate change. Does that mean I can't weigh in on it? Sounds like you want the circle to remain closed, free from critique or God forbid, criticisms when warranted. Can anyone, even the most devout worshipper of the neo-religion known as climate change, state that recent shock waves involving fabricated/concealed/fudged data should not be publicly aired? What is there to hide? Sunlight is a great disinfectant but if something is not rotting or rotten, why fear that degree of inspection? The (only) main point in your previous post was to call into question what I have stated about myself. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest and even less desire to have someone clearly imply that I am not what I claim to be. Come off your pretentious throne as the purveyor of what is truth and who speaks to it. And no, I've not met any RP types in real time. I can't say there are any RP members who would wish to meet me and perhaps, vice versa.
Wow! Are you one bitter sonuvabitch!
Ahem... I never offered my trust. It is irrelevant.I didn't ever question your veracity, but your insecurity regarding it sure did. I nnever asked you to defend yourself. You are just a defensive kinda fella. As I have no notion sof you, how can they be false? Tsk tsk.. such insecurity again. And yup... it is extremely clear that you are quite muddied as to what I do. No problem, it was not the topic here. your attempt to make it so is just another ruse in the defense of your... you got it: insecurity. But anyways, I made it clear tht the circle I was referring to were fellow RPeeps. You won't cast aspersions, eh? Well, you mean, no more than you already did in the previous casting of aspersions tirade about cows chewing cuds, etc? Hey, you can't say I would do the same as you, because you lie, Mr. No-Aspersion-Caster. You are so right, I wouldn't, because i have no need to do so. It saddens me that when I posited a logical progression you chose to make it a reason for personal attack. Oh well. You aren't sold on the GW?CC argument? Really? Sure weigh in. That is why the thread title says 'Climate Change'. "Sounds like you want the circle to remain closed, free from critique or God forbid, criticisms when warranted." you say of me. Pfffttt. Another rash assumption on your part, based in absolutely fucking nothing. The reality is that I am even more suspicious of the scientific findings than you probably are. Maybe for different reasons, but not only am I not sold on it, I am not in the market to be bought. The rest of that paragraph (did you notice that I am responding sentence to your sentence?)... disparaging name calling really presents the validity of your argument well, donchya think? No, my main point was not to call into question your veracity as to whom you are. It is not my concern. I addressed the position upon which your self-proclaimed stature of arguing from is contrary to the standards of scientific discourse. You are engaging in a pissing contest... so let go of your weenie, dude, if you really don't want to do so. Again, I make no claim as to who you are or aren't. Damn, that slip of insecurity is just all over you tonight! Purveyor, eh? Mirror. I didn't think so, regarding the peer review of RPeeps. But I can say you are incorrect in the first half of your last sentence. As I have said before, you seem like the kind of guy I could sit down around a campfire with and have a good laugh and chat. And I feel it safe to say that there are others who would also be wanting to sit down 'round that fire and just enjoy a few good ones.
Look, I get that you are used to battling off idiots who have very little rational grasp or perspective. You miscalled me when you assumed I was another. But, hey, m_k, just because someone is willing to call you on your BS doesn't make of that person an enemy. Perhaps he is simply not afraid of the block bully. Or maybe he is seeking to nudge a rational statement out of the bullshit so that a coherent argument can be elicited.
Only one last comment on this nonsense: unless your're a scientist, don't tell me how about scientific standards. I've been in the business for 30+ years...I think by now I know the ins and outs of how science is properly conducted, reviewed and reported.
now, with all that has passed between us, enjoy. I really have no desire to have someone unqualified claim I am BSing...but then, some of your posts are so right out of cosmic orbits so from my perch, you know BS...really...check some of the mystical nonsense you pass on as fact when in reality it is the purest form of bovine excrement acceptable to only those who believe Tarot cards, the tooth fairy and French born whores. Until proven otherwise, I'll assume you're an idiot even though I never came close to intimating that level of mental acuity and your abilities.
Ok...done...over...out. Say what you might feel necessary as a follow-on. I will just move along. thank you kindly.
PS...not bitter...actually, a peaceful, content, comfortable man...oh, gee, sounds like BS, right? whatthefuckever...
I don't need or seek your trust. You've already done a helluva good job in questioning my veracity. I don't need to further defend myself to you or anyone else in this forum. You can make your own decisions as you see me and as you see fit. I am powerless to disuade you of any false notions. Again, with the self-proclaimed. Whatever...I know how my bread is buttered. As for peer review in your circle...would that mean having those who peer into water droplets, practice phrenology, mindlessly sift through sand, ponder navel lint or gaze at cows chewing their cud, weigh in on what it is I do? Your circle can no more qualify me than my associates or friends could certify whatever it is you do...something in the mystical arena if I recall? Spiritual, perhaps? Since I have no idea what you do, I won't cast aspersions on your standards or abilities. Shame I can't say you return that in kind. Worse shame yet, you can't say it. I am not sold on global warming/climate change. Does that mean I can't weigh in on it? Sounds like you want the circle to remain closed, free from critique or God forbid, criticisms when warranted. Can anyone, even the most devout worshipper of the neo-religion known as climate change, state that recent shock waves involving fabricated/concealed/fudged data should not be publicly aired? What is there to hide? Sunlight is a great disinfectant but if something is not rotting or rotten, why fear that degree of inspection? The (only) main point in your previous post was to call into question what I have stated about myself. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest and even less desire to have someone clearly imply that I am not what I claim to be. Come off your pretentious throne as the purveyor of what is truth and who speaks to it. And no, I've not met any RP types in real time. I can't say there are any RP members who would wish to meet me and perhaps, vice versa.
Wow! Are you one bitter sonuvabitch!
Ahem... I never offered my trust. It is irrelevant.I didn't ever question your veracity, but your insecurity regarding it sure did. I nnever asked you to defend yourself. You are just a defensive kinda fella. As I have no notion sof you, how can they be false? Tsk tsk.. such insecurity again. And yup... it is extremely clear that you are quite muddied as to what I do. No problem, it was not the topic here. your attempt to make it so is just another ruse in the defense of your... you got it: insecurity. But anyways, I made it clear tht the circle I was referring to were fellow RPeeps. You won't cast aspersions, eh? Well, you mean, no more than you already did in the previous casting of aspersions tirade about cows chewing cuds, etc? Hey, you can't say I would do the same as you, because you lie, Mr. No-Aspersion-Caster. You are so right, I wouldn't, because i have no need to do so. It saddens me that when I posited a logical progression you chose to make it a reason for personal attack. Oh well. You aren't sold on the GW?CC argument? Really? Sure weigh in. That is why the thread title says 'Climate Change'. "Sounds like you want the circle to remain closed, free from critique or God forbid, criticisms when warranted." you say of me. Pfffttt. Another rash assumption on your part, based in absolutely fucking nothing. The reality is that I am even more suspicious of the scientific findings than you probably are. Maybe for different reasons, but not only am I not sold on it, I am not in the market to be bought. The rest of that paragraph (did you notice that I am responding sentence to your sentence?)... disparaging name calling really presents the validity of your argument well, donchya think? No, my main point was not to call into question your veracity as to whom you are. It is not my concern. I addressed the position upon which your self-proclaimed stature of arguing from is contrary to the standards of scientific discourse. You are engaging in a pissing contest... so let go of your weenie, dude, if you really don't want to do so. Again, I make no claim as to who you are or aren't. Damn, that slip of insecurity is just all over you tonight! Purveyor, eh? Mirror. I didn't think so, regarding the peer review of RPeeps. But I can say you are incorrect in the first half of your last sentence. As I have said before, you seem like the kind of guy I could sit down around a campfire with and have a good laugh and chat. And I feel it safe to say that there are others who would also be wanting to sit down 'round that fire and just enjoy a few good ones.
Look, I get that you are used to battling off idiots who have very little rational grasp or perspective. You miscalled me when you assumed I was another. But, hey, m_k, just because someone is willing to call you on your BS doesn't make of that person an enemy. Perhaps he is simply not afraid of the block bully. Or maybe he is seeking to nudge a rational statement out of the bullshit so that a coherent argument can be elicited.
The whole question of disgraced climate researchers and their findings is most important because not only The UN but many nations were using those findings to formulate global and state policies. We're not discussing some lesser known researchers toiling in relative obscurity at a lower level facility. That the top tier facilities engaged in unethical practices, conspired to conceal, openly discussed destroying critics and those folks are looked at for guidance, is most paramount in the climate change debate. Recall, we were told the discussion was over, the science settled. Now we know why that was a common cry: they knew their work did not support a set of preconceived outcomes. I did not, repeat, did not, make an all inclusive suggestion that all climate researchers engaged in and conspired to cook their data. That all showed by discussion, a desire to get around the typical formats and forums for peer review. What caused this to have such an impact on the whole field of climate research are the facilities involved and the researchers within them. Top tier facilities, leading experts. And now, serious questions as to what they actually found. That's not a suggestion by any stretch that everyone in the field warrants unusually close scrutiny even though that is how science policies itself. Although a good number are reluctant to share their data and have open, honest, hard hitting discussions and presentations and that naturally continues to raise eyebrows. As for myself, I am not a self-claimed scientist. That sounds as if I am something else and just playing a scientist. No, I am a scientist in a field I have previously noted. My supposed standards? That is unfairly suggestive that I have none. I can state with unerring confidence and accuracy that never has anyone challenged my data in such a way as to suggest it was not real or worthy of merit. No one has ever openly assaulted any paper I have published and claimed it was a fabrication of my doing, that I was unethical or underhanded in the findings presented. I've been through what seems to be a zillion peer reviews and if I had supposed standards, I would be selling pencils on a street corner. Scientists are damn good at rooting out fraud. Once a year, I have to stand before the entire technical staff and give a thumbnail sketch of project(s) progress and then open myself to any and all questions. If I was bluffing or fudging, I'd be frozen by my peers as if a deer caught in headlights. My standards are of the highest order and those which are universally expected and demanded.
Self-proclaimed, yes. I don't know you. You could be some 14 year old girl in pajamas for all I know. You have proclaimed that you are a bio-engineer. I have no basis to doubt you, but you have not come under any peer review of authenticity by any in my social circles. Unless, of course, you have met up with other RPeeps whom I know and trust.
Supposed standards, yes. Not false standards. I did not say you falsely held those standards. I said you may want to reevaluate your position of decrying Global Climate Change as an application of scientific rigor, when you make it so clear that it is a personal bias.
All the rest of your verbiage just further illustrates the main point made in my original statement.
I don't need or seek your trust. You've already done a helluva good job in questioning my veracity. I don't need to further defend myself to you or anyone else in this forum. You can make your own decisions as you see me and as you see fit. I am powerless to disuade you of any false notions. Again, with the self-proclaimed. Whatever...I know how my bread is buttered. As for peer review in your circle...would that mean having those who peer into water droplets, practice phrenology, mindlessly sift through sand, ponder navel lint or gaze at cows chewing their cud, weigh in on what it is I do? Your circle can no more qualify me than my associates or friends could certify whatever it is you do...something in the mystical arena if I recall? Spiritual, perhaps? Since I have no idea what you do, I won't cast aspersions on your standards or abilities. Shame I can't say you return that in kind. Worse shame yet, you can't say it. I am not sold on global warming/climate change. Does that mean I can't weigh in on it? Sounds like you want the circle to remain closed, free from critique or God forbid, criticisms when warranted. Can anyone, even the most devout worshipper of the neo-religion known as climate change, state that recent shock waves involving fabricated/concealed/fudged data should not be publicly aired? What is there to hide? Sunlight is a great disinfectant but if something is not rotting or rotten, why fear that degree of inspection? The (only) main point in your previous post was to call into question what I have stated about myself. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest and even less desire to have someone clearly imply that I am not what I claim to be. Come off your pretentious throne as the purveyor of what is truth and who speaks to it. And no, I've not met any RP types in real time. I can't say there are any RP members who would wish to meet me and perhaps, vice versa. Peace...enjoy the evening.
The whole question of disgraced climate researchers and their findings is most important because not only The UN but many nations were using those findings to formulate global and state policies. We're not discussing some lesser known researchers toiling in relative obscurity at a lower level facility. That the top tier facilities engaged in unethical practices, conspired to conceal, openly discussed destroying critics and those folks are looked at for guidance, is most paramount in the climate change debate. Recall, we were told the discussion was over, the science settled. Now we know why that was a common cry: they knew their work did not support a set of preconceived outcomes. I did not, repeat, did not, make an all inclusive suggestion that all climate researchers engaged in and conspired to cook their data. That all showed by discussion, a desire to get around the typical formats and forums for peer review. What caused this to have such an impact on the whole field of climate research are the facilities involved and the researchers within them. Top tier facilities, leading experts. And now, serious questions as to what they actually found. That's not a suggestion by any stretch that everyone in the field warrants unusually close scrutiny even though that is how science policies itself. Although a good number are reluctant to share their data and have open, honest, hard hitting discussions and presentations and that naturally continues to raise eyebrows. As for myself, I am not a self-claimed scientist. That sounds as if I am something else and just playing a scientist. No, I am a scientist in a field I have previously noted. My supposed standards? That is unfairly suggestive that I have none. I can state with unerring confidence and accuracy that never has anyone challenged my data in such a way as to suggest it was not real or worthy of merit. No one has ever openly assaulted any paper I have published and claimed it was a fabrication of my doing, that I was unethical or underhanded in the findings presented. I've been through what seems to be a zillion peer reviews and if I had supposed standards, I would be selling pencils on a street corner. Scientists are damn good at rooting out fraud. Once a year, I have to stand before the entire technical staff and give a thumbnail sketch of project(s) progress and then open myself to any and all questions. If I was bluffing or fudging, I'd be frozen by my peers as if a deer caught in headlights. My standards are of the highest order and those which are universally expected and demanded.
Self-proclaimed, yes. I don't know you. You could be some 14 year old girl in pajamas for all I know. You have proclaimed that you are a bio-engineer. I have no basis to doubt you, but you have not come under any peer review of authenticity by any in my social circles. Unless, of course, you have met up with other RPeeps whom I know and trust.
Supposed standards, yes. Not false standards. I did not say you falsely held those standards. I said you may want to reevaluate your position of decrying Global Climate Change as an application of scientific rigor, when you make it so clear that it is a personal bias.
All the rest of your verbiage just further illustrates the main point made in my original statement.
Gee, I thought he was completely pragmatic and objective on every topic he addresses.
The whole question of disgraced climate researchers and their findings is most important because not only The UN but many nations were using those findings to formulate global and state policies. We're not discussing some lesser known researchers toiling in relative obscurity at a lower level facility. That the top tier facilities engaged in unethical practices, conspired to conceal, openly discussed destroying critics and those folks are looked at for guidance, is most paramount in the climate change debate. Recall, we were told the discussion was over, the science settled. Now we know why that was a common cry: they knew their work did not support a set of preconceived outcomes. I did not, repeat, did not, make an all inclusive suggestion that all climate researchers engaged in and conspired to cook their data. That all showed by discussion, a desire to get around the typical formats and forums for peer review. What caused this to have such an impact on the whole field of climate research are the facilities involved and the researchers within them. Top tier facilities, leading experts. And now, serious questions as to what they actually found. That's not a suggestion by any stretch that everyone in the field warrants unusually close scrutiny even though that is how science policies itself. Although a good number are reluctant to share their data and have open, honest, hard hitting discussions and presentations and that naturally continues to raise eyebrows. As for myself, I am not a self-claimed scientist. That sounds as if I am something else and just playing a scientist. No, I am a scientist in a field I have previously noted. My supposed standards? That is unfairly suggestive that I have none. I can state with unerring confidence and accuracy that never has anyone challenged my data in such a way as to suggest it was not real or worthy of merit. No one has ever openly assaulted any paper I have published and claimed it was a fabrication of my doing, that I was unethical or underhanded in the findings presented. I've been through what seems to be a zillion peer reviews and if I had supposed standards, I would be selling pencils on a street corner. Scientists are damn good at rooting out fraud. Once a year, I have to stand before the entire technical staff and give a thumbnail sketch of project(s) progress and then open myself to any and all questions. If I was bluffing or fudging, I'd be frozen by my peers as if a deer caught in headlights. My standards are of the highest order and those which are universally expected and demanded.
Self-proclaimed, yes. I don't know you. You could be some 14 year old girl in pajamas for all I know. You have proclaimed that you are a bio-engineer. I have no basis to doubt you, but you have not come under any peer review of authenticity by any in my social circles. Unless, of course, you have met up with other RPeeps whom I know and trust.
Supposed standards, yes. Not false standards. I did not say you falsely held those standards. I said you may want to reevaluate your position of decrying Global Climate Change as an application of scientific rigor, when you make it so clear that it is a personal bias.
All the rest of your verbiage just further illustrates the main point made in my original statement.
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Let me get this straight. Scientists are well known to present their case in such a manner as will bring them the greatest funding, ie, keep them in a job. The tilt, the slant, whatever, hopefully does not compromise the integrity of their work. If it does, peer review makes sure that those unscrupulous individuals are exposed and the findings they have presented can be eliminated from the field of their research so as to best insure that the whole field is not thereby contaminated, right? Damn good approach.
Now, if some slime balls of - let's say - genetic engineer researchers wanted to puff their own pockets by falsifying and fudging, even slightly, their research, they would eventually be found out and disgraced. That disgrace would be the self-imposed rectifier of the good name of that discipline to keep its standing from being besmirched and consequently thrown into disregard by the entire scientific community. Got it. As a result, other members of the greater scientific community will be able to shake their heads in remorse at such shenanigans going on within that particular discipline, but will also extend a hand of mutual support to those who, in that discipline, maintained the rigors of research ethics. Good system.
And yet you, a self-claimed scientist, disregard the very protocols established by your community, and instead insist that because of the fraud and fault of a few, out of the thousands and thousands of researchers who have performed exemplary science, untainted by the faulty input into the data stream of these empirically criminal idiots - as they are in separate, and often segregated disciplines - the findings of an entire complex of scientific data and research, verified and having gone through appropriate peer review, you choose to denigrate and disregard as being ignoble.
I think, sir, you may want to apply that same rigor to your own supposed standards. A scientist has no room of allowance for personal beliefs to interfere with the findings of research. Your bias, whether correct or faulty, does not meet the criteria of objective discourse.
The whole question of disgraced climate researchers and their findings is most important because not only The UN but many nations were using those findings to formulate global and state policies. We're not discussing some lesser known researchers toiling in relative obscurity at a lower level facility. That the top tier facilities engaged in unethical practices, conspired to conceal, openly discussed destroying critics and those folks are looked at for guidance, is most paramount in the climate change debate. Recall, we were told the discussion was over, the science settled. Now we know why that was a common cry: they knew their work did not support a set of preconceived outcomes. I did not, repeat, did not, make an all inclusive suggestion that all climate researchers engaged in and conspired to cook their data. That all showed by discussion, a desire to get around the typical formats and forums for peer review. What caused this to have such an impact on the whole field of climate research are the facilities involved and the researchers within them. Top tier facilities, leading experts. And now, serious questions as to what they actually found. That's not a suggestion by any stretch that everyone in the field warrants unusually close scrutiny even though that is how science policies itself. Although a good number are reluctant to share their data and have open, honest, hard hitting discussions and presentations and that naturally continues to raise eyebrows. As for myself, I am not a self-claimed scientist. That sounds as if I am something else and just playing a scientist. No, I am a scientist in a field I have previously noted. My supposed standards? That is unfairly suggestive that I have none. I can state with unerring confidence and accuracy that never has anyone challenged my data in such a way as to suggest it was not real or worthy of merit. No one has ever openly assaulted any paper I have published and claimed it was a fabrication of my doing, that I was unethical or underhanded in the findings presented. I've been through what seems to be a zillion peer reviews and if I had supposed standards, I would be selling pencils on a street corner. Scientists are damn good at rooting out fraud. Once a year, I have to stand before the entire technical staff and give a thumbnail sketch of project(s) progress and then open myself to any and all questions. If I was bluffing or fudging, I'd be frozen by my peers as if a deer caught in headlights. My standards are of the highest order and those which are universally expected and demanded.
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Let me get this straight. Scientists are well known to present their case in such a manner as will bring them the greatest funding, ie, keep them in a job. The tilt, the slant, whatever, hopefully does not compromise the integrity of their work. If it does, peer review makes sure that those unscrupulous individuals are exposed and the findings they have presented can be eliminated from the field of their research so as to best insure that the whole field is not thereby contaminated, right? Damn good approach.
Now, if some slime balls of - let's say - genetic engineer researchers wanted to puff their own pockets by falsifying and fudging, even slightly, their research, they would eventually be found out and disgraced. That disgrace would be the self-imposed rectifier of the good name of that discipline to keep its standing from being besmirched and consequently thrown into disregard by the entire scientific community. Got it. As a result, other members of the greater scientific community will be able to shake their heads in remorse at such shenanigans going on within that particular discipline, but will also extend a hand of mutual support to those who, in that discipline, maintained the rigors of research ethics. Good system.
And yet you, a self-claimed scientist, disregard the very protocols established by your community, and instead insist that because of the fraud and fault of a few, out of the thousands and thousands of researchers who have performed exemplary science, untainted by the faulty input into the data stream of these empirically criminal idiots - as they are in separate, and often segregated disciplines - the findings of an entire complex of scientific data and research, verified and having gone through appropriate peer review, you choose to denigrate and disregard as being ignoble.
I think, sir, you may want to apply that same rigor to your own supposed standards. A scientist has no room of allowance for personal beliefs to interfere with the findings of research. Your bias, whether correct or faulty, does not meet the criteria of objective discourse.
Haven't you noticed the lying pandemic? No matter what sector of human endeavor?
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Let me get this straight. Scientists are well known to present their case in such a manner as will bring them the greatest funding, ie, keep them in a job. The tilt, the slant, whatever, hopefully does not compromise the integrity of their work. If it does, peer review makes sure that those unscrupulous individuals are exposed and the findings they have presented can be eliminated from the field of their research so as to best insure that the whole field is not thereby contaminated, right? Damn good approach.
Now, if some slime balls of - let's say - genetic engineer researchers wanted to puff their own pockets by falsifying and fudging, even slightly, their research, they would eventually be found out and disgraced. That disgrace would be the self-imposed rectifier of the good name of that discipline to keep its standing from being besmirched and consequently thrown into disregard by the entire scientific community. Got it. As a result, other members of the greater scientific community will be able to shake their heads in remorse at such shenanigans going on within that particular discipline, but will also extend a hand of mutual support to those who, in that discipline, maintained the rigors of research ethics. Good system.
And yet you, a self-claimed scientist, disregard the very protocols established by your community, and instead insist that because of the fraud and fault of a few, out of the thousands and thousands of researchers who have performed exemplary science, untainted by the faulty input into the data stream of these empirically criminal idiots - as they are in separate, and often segregated disciplines - the findings of an entire complex of scientific data and research, verified and having gone through appropriate peer review, you choose to denigrate and disregard as being ignoble.
I think, sir, you may want to apply that same rigor to your own supposed standards. A scientist has no room of allowance for personal beliefs to interfere with the findings of research. Your bias, whether correct or faulty, does not meet the criteria of objective discourse.
Joseph D'Aleo interview sheds a lot of light on the inaccuracies and fraud. (PDF)
Isn't it high time that all of the data (and the means and methods used by all) laid out for peer review?
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
,,THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING !
