AnOTHER Open Challenge for my AGW Friends

[ding]

I think you're dodging. Do you believe the scientific conclusions of, say, the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report are intentionally false?

OMG, you accusing someone else of dodging. That's rich.

 

[Batcat]

And on that you conclude that all the science is... what? Mistaken? Lies? Exaggeration?

Climate scientists have lied and fudged data before. It becomes hard to believe anything they say after they have lied to us.

Climate Hoax: Scientist Admits He Lied To Get His Study Published​

Link …Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

Retired NOAA Scientist Doubles Down on Climate Data Controversy

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines." In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics'...

www.insidescience.org

Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

climatecenter.fsu.edu

 

[Crick]

Climate scientists have lied and fudged data before. It becomes hard to believe anything they say after they have lied to us.

Climate Hoax: Scientist Admits He Lied To Get His Study Published​

Link …Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

Retired NOAA Scientist Doubles Down on Climate Data Controversy

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines." In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics'...

www.insidescience.org

Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

climatecenter.fsu.edu

Your linked article. Emphases in the first bit are mine.

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines." In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics' darkest suspicions of climate scientists, he claimed that the lead author of an important 2015 climate study had rushed publication and mismanaged data, all in an effort to exaggerate recent warming trends and influence the fall 2015 Paris climate talks. The accusations spurred outrage from politicians already suspicious of the study, as well as from a British tabloid called The Daily Mail, which announced that world leaders had been "duped" into spending billions to curb fossil fuel emissions.​

​

However, conversations with numerous climate scientists and Bates himself have revealed a more tangled picture of the disagreement. Bates told Inside Science that he believes in human-caused climate change, yet he said he stands by the content of the Daily Mail article.​

​

Independent scientists and the accused researchers contest Bates' allegations, and in some cases appear to find them incomprehensible. Their comments raise questions about how, if at all, a dispute over one paper should influence the overall understanding of what humans are doing to the climate.​

​

Other scientists were quick to refute Bates' claims and defend the "Karl study," which is named for its lead author, Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. On blog posts and social media, researchers praised the Karl study's scientific rigor and pointed out that its findings have been replicated in other studies by independent researchers. A statement by Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of Science, defended the journal's decision to publish the study, noting that it had gone through a particularly rigorous peer review. And even John Fyfe, lead author of a study Bates cited as being critical of the Karl study, had only good things to say about it.​

​

"I thought it was an excellent contribution," said Fyfe, who works as a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria, British Columbia. "When we first saw the paper, we asked the lead author to send us the data, which he did. And it was fully accounted for."​

​

So why did Bates accuse the researchers of wrongdoing?​

​

"It's not deep fraud or anything," said Bates. "It's more a series of biases that seem to lead in one direction."​

​

Researchers on Karl's team say they have struggled to understand what he's talking about.​

​

Even if the details of Bates' complaints were true, they wouldn't support his more inflammatory accusations, according to Karl. For example, Bates claimed that Karl constantly had his "thumb on the scale" in an effort to increase the apparent rate of warming in recent years. But his specific accusations mostly deal with whether the researchers followed data processing and archiving procedures that Bates helped develop. These procedures wouldn't have changed the findings of the study at all, according to Karl. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth in California, agrees.​

​

"Nothing in Bates' post provides any evidence that Karl et al. manipulated the data or specifically tried to show more warming," Hausfather told Inside Science in an email. Hausfather wasn't involved in the Karl study, but he replicated its key findings in a study published in Science Advances. When he saw Bates' accusations, he published a blow-by-blow rebuttal on the blog CarbonBrief.​

​

Bates also accused Karl of rushing publication for political purposes, timing it to influence the Paris climate talks. Karl and his colleagues deny that their research was rushed, and say there was never any discussion of getting it out before the climate summit in Paris. And despite his accusation, Bates told Inside Science that he doesn't remember any such conversations, either. He confirmed that the political motivation was a guess, based only on the pace of the research and the date when it came out.​

​

Karl and his colleagues are equally perplexed by Bates' explanations of exactly what they did wrong. Much of Bates' concern seems to be whether the researchers used a data archiving process called Climate Data Records, which Bates helped develop. According to Karl, this process was meant to be the "gold standard" for managing operational datasets -- huge troves of data that are continually updated with new measurements from satellites, land stations, ocean buoys and other sources. The full CDR process is costly and time-consuming, and involves having engineers rewrite the software that turns measurements into useful metrics like monthly temperature averages, said Karl. But in theory, this effort pays off with more reliable databases that are easy for a wide range of people to use.​

​

In practice, scientists have mixed views on whether the CDR standard and similar processes are worth the trouble. Karl said he was enthusiastic about it at first, even convincing Congress to allocate money for it. But the money soon ran out, and it has proven harder than expected to update the databases when scientists develop better ways to calculate climate metrics from raw measurements.​

​

Climate scientists at other institutions don't necessarily embrace the CDR approach, either. Hausfather said that neither his institution at Berkeley Earth nor the Hadley Center in the United Kingdom uses the highly engineered CDR data format. And Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who wrote a blog post contesting Bates' claims and used to work with the NOAA researchers, warns against equating engineering maturity with data quality.​

​

"You can have the best engineered climate data record in the world, and it can be flat out scientifically wrong," he said. "And you can have a dataset, the process engineering of which is ropey as hell, that scientifically is closer to the truth."​

​

One of Bates' main criticisms of the Karl study was that it used land temperature data that had not gone through a CDR-like process. The researchers could have used an older, fully processed version of the dataset, but that would have meant throwing out most of their land data. Alternatively, they could have waited for the dataset to be formally updated. NOAA is working on the update, said Karl, but as of February 2017, it's still not ready.​

​

The researchers aren't sure why Bates objects to their use of land data that hasn't gone through the CDR process. Thomas Peterson -- another former NOAA scientist, and one of the authors of the Karl study -- interpreted Bates' blog post to mean that researchers must apply the CDR process or similar processes to all data before they can publish scientific papers about it. "I think that is what John is saying. But I can't be completely sure," he wrote in an email.​

​

Karl declined to speculate.​

​

"What I have a hard time telling is what's in John Bates' mind, and what does he think -- what does he think the NOAA procedures were?" said Karl.​

​

Bates shed some light on the issue in an interview with Inside Science. He agreed with Karl and Peterson that not all NOAA climate studies have to use CDR data, but said that Karl's team ignored procedures that had been established for this particular dataset.​

​

"At that point, we were doing everything that way," he said. "But all of a sudden, there was this exception."​

​

Bates had a chance to raise concerns before the study was published, since he arranged the internal review, said Karl. That much is true, said Bates -- he signed off on the study, but he didn't learn about the problems until after it was published. His job, he said, was just to select an anonymous reviewer and look for things that might embarrass NOAA, such as the authors endorsing a product. When he read the paper during the review process, he didn't have the supplementary materials that described the data and analysis, and he wasn't looking for science content.​

​

Some former NOAA employees have speculated that Bates' accusations are about more than data. In 2012, Karl demoted Bates from a managerial position due to interpersonal issues with other staff members. But Bates denies that this personal history played a role. He searched deep inside himself, he said, to be sure that his motivation was the data -- "not a feud between myself and Tom Karl."​

​

The Karl study has sparked controversy ever since it was published. The study deals with the period between about 1998 and 2012, when global temperatures were rising more slowly than at other times in recent history. Some researchers have called this period a global warming "hiatus," and climate skeptics have used it to dismiss fears about rising global temperatures. The Karl study appeared to undercut these arguments by showing that temperatures had been rising faster than previously thought.​

​

But even if there were a warming hiatus, it wouldn't discredit human-caused climate change, said Fyfe. Researchers view temporary lulls in surface temperature increases as an expected part of the global warming process. Now, Fyfe notes, surface temperatures appear to be spiking again, with record warmth three years in a row.​

​

"Society should be aware that this is not just a straight line. There are going to be, you know, ups and downs to the warming," said Fyfe.​

​

For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.​

​

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."​

​

 

[Crick]

Your linked article. Emphases in the first bit are mine.

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines." In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics' darkest suspicions of climate scientists, he claimed that the lead author of an important 2015 climate study had rushed publication and mismanaged data, all in an effort to exaggerate recent warming trends and influence the fall 2015 Paris climate talks. The accusations spurred outrage from politicians already suspicious of the study, as well as from a British tabloid called The Daily Mail, which announced that world leaders had been "duped" into spending billions to curb fossil fuel emissions.​

​

However, conversations with numerous climate scientists and Bates himself have revealed a more tangled picture of the disagreement. Bates told Inside Science that he believes in human-caused climate change, yet he said he stands by the content of the Daily Mail article.​

​

Independent scientists and the accused researchers contest Bates' allegations, and in some cases appear to find them incomprehensible. Their comments raise questions about how, if at all, a dispute over one paper should influence the overall understanding of what humans are doing to the climate.​

​

Other scientists were quick to refute Bates' claims and defend the "Karl study," which is named for its lead author, Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. On blog posts and social media, researchers praised the Karl study's scientific rigor and pointed out that its findings have been replicated in other studies by independent researchers. A statement by Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of Science, defended the journal's decision to publish the study, noting that it had gone through a particularly rigorous peer review. And even John Fyfe, lead author of a study Bates cited as being critical of the Karl study, had only good things to say about it.​

​

"I thought it was an excellent contribution," said Fyfe, who works as a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria, British Columbia. "When we first saw the paper, we asked the lead author to send us the data, which he did. And it was fully accounted for."​

​

So why did Bates accuse the researchers of wrongdoing?​

​

"It's not deep fraud or anything," said Bates. "It's more a series of biases that seem to lead in one direction."​

​

Researchers on Karl's team say they have struggled to understand what he's talking about.​

​

Even if the details of Bates' complaints were true, they wouldn't support his more inflammatory accusations, according to Karl. For example, Bates claimed that Karl constantly had his "thumb on the scale" in an effort to increase the apparent rate of warming in recent years. But his specific accusations mostly deal with whether the researchers followed data processing and archiving procedures that Bates helped develop. These procedures wouldn't have changed the findings of the study at all, according to Karl. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth in California, agrees.​

​

"Nothing in Bates' post provides any evidence that Karl et al. manipulated the data or specifically tried to show more warming," Hausfather told Inside Science in an email. Hausfather wasn't involved in the Karl study, but he replicated its key findings in a study published in Science Advances. When he saw Bates' accusations, he published a blow-by-blow rebuttal on the blog CarbonBrief.​

​

Bates also accused Karl of rushing publication for political purposes, timing it to influence the Paris climate talks. Karl and his colleagues deny that their research was rushed, and say there was never any discussion of getting it out before the climate summit in Paris. And despite his accusation, Bates told Inside Science that he doesn't remember any such conversations, either. He confirmed that the political motivation was a guess, based only on the pace of the research and the date when it came out.​

​

Karl and his colleagues are equally perplexed by Bates' explanations of exactly what they did wrong. Much of Bates' concern seems to be whether the researchers used a data archiving process called Climate Data Records, which Bates helped develop. According to Karl, this process was meant to be the "gold standard" for managing operational datasets -- huge troves of data that are continually updated with new measurements from satellites, land stations, ocean buoys and other sources. The full CDR process is costly and time-consuming, and involves having engineers rewrite the software that turns measurements into useful metrics like monthly temperature averages, said Karl. But in theory, this effort pays off with more reliable databases that are easy for a wide range of people to use.​

​

In practice, scientists have mixed views on whether the CDR standard and similar processes are worth the trouble. Karl said he was enthusiastic about it at first, even convincing Congress to allocate money for it. But the money soon ran out, and it has proven harder than expected to update the databases when scientists develop better ways to calculate climate metrics from raw measurements.​

​

Climate scientists at other institutions don't necessarily embrace the CDR approach, either. Hausfather said that neither his institution at Berkeley Earth nor the Hadley Center in the United Kingdom uses the highly engineered CDR data format. And Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who wrote a blog post contesting Bates' claims and used to work with the NOAA researchers, warns against equating engineering maturity with data quality.​

​

"You can have the best engineered climate data record in the world, and it can be flat out scientifically wrong," he said. "And you can have a dataset, the process engineering of which is ropey as hell, that scientifically is closer to the truth."​

​

One of Bates' main criticisms of the Karl study was that it used land temperature data that had not gone through a CDR-like process. The researchers could have used an older, fully processed version of the dataset, but that would have meant throwing out most of their land data. Alternatively, they could have waited for the dataset to be formally updated. NOAA is working on the update, said Karl, but as of February 2017, it's still not ready.​

​

The researchers aren't sure why Bates objects to their use of land data that hasn't gone through the CDR process. Thomas Peterson -- another former NOAA scientist, and one of the authors of the Karl study -- interpreted Bates' blog post to mean that researchers must apply the CDR process or similar processes to all data before they can publish scientific papers about it. "I think that is what John is saying. But I can't be completely sure," he wrote in an email.​

​

Karl declined to speculate.​

​

"What I have a hard time telling is what's in John Bates' mind, and what does he think -- what does he think the NOAA procedures were?" said Karl.​

​

Bates shed some light on the issue in an interview with Inside Science. He agreed with Karl and Peterson that not all NOAA climate studies have to use CDR data, but said that Karl's team ignored procedures that had been established for this particular dataset.​

​

"At that point, we were doing everything that way," he said. "But all of a sudden, there was this exception."​

​

Bates had a chance to raise concerns before the study was published, since he arranged the internal review, said Karl. That much is true, said Bates -- he signed off on the study, but he didn't learn about the problems until after it was published. His job, he said, was just to select an anonymous reviewer and look for things that might embarrass NOAA, such as the authors endorsing a product. When he read the paper during the review process, he didn't have the supplementary materials that described the data and analysis, and he wasn't looking for science content.​

​

Some former NOAA employees have speculated that Bates' accusations are about more than data. In 2012, Karl demoted Bates from a managerial position due to interpersonal issues with other staff members. But Bates denies that this personal history played a role. He searched deep inside himself, he said, to be sure that his motivation was the data -- "not a feud between myself and Tom Karl."​

​

The Karl study has sparked controversy ever since it was published. The study deals with the period between about 1998 and 2012, when global temperatures were rising more slowly than at other times in recent history. Some researchers have called this period a global warming "hiatus," and climate skeptics have used it to dismiss fears about rising global temperatures. The Karl study appeared to undercut these arguments by showing that temperatures had been rising faster than previously thought.​

​

But even if there were a warming hiatus, it wouldn't discredit human-caused climate change, said Fyfe. Researchers view temporary lulls in surface temperature increases as an expected part of the global warming process. Now, Fyfe notes, surface temperatures appear to be spiking again, with record warmth three years in a row.​

​

"Society should be aware that this is not just a straight line. There are going to be, you know, ups and downs to the warming," said Fyfe.​

​

For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.​

​

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."​

​

So you think this is hard evidence that thousands of climate scientists from around the world whose work is assessed and summarized by the IPCC have "lied and fudged the data"?

 

[ding]

So you think this is hard evidence that thousands of climate scientists from around the world whose work is assessed and summarized by the IPCC have "lied and fudged the data"?

Or attributing the planet naturally warming to its pre-glacial temperature to feedback from a weak GHG.

 

[ding]

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."

But not due to an incremental 120 ppm increase from a weak GHG.

 

[Batcat]

Your linked article. Emphases in the first bit are mine.

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines." In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics' darkest suspicions of climate scientists, he claimed that the lead author of an important 2015 climate study had rushed publication and mismanaged data, all in an effort to exaggerate recent warming trends and influence the fall 2015 Paris climate talks. The accusations spurred outrage from politicians already suspicious of the study, as well as from a British tabloid called The Daily Mail, which announced that world leaders had been "duped" into spending billions to curb fossil fuel emissions.​

​

However, conversations with numerous climate scientists and Bates himself have revealed a more tangled picture of the disagreement. Bates told Inside Science that he believes in human-caused climate change, yet he said he stands by the content of the Daily Mail article.​

​

Independent scientists and the accused researchers contest Bates' allegations, and in some cases appear to find them incomprehensible. Their comments raise questions about how, if at all, a dispute over one paper should influence the overall understanding of what humans are doing to the climate.​

​

Other scientists were quick to refute Bates' claims and defend the "Karl study," which is named for its lead author, Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. On blog posts and social media, researchers praised the Karl study's scientific rigor and pointed out that its findings have been replicated in other studies by independent researchers. A statement by Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of Science, defended the journal's decision to publish the study, noting that it had gone through a particularly rigorous peer review. And even John Fyfe, lead author of a study Bates cited as being critical of the Karl study, had only good things to say about it.​

​

"I thought it was an excellent contribution," said Fyfe, who works as a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria, British Columbia. "When we first saw the paper, we asked the lead author to send us the data, which he did. And it was fully accounted for."​

​

So why did Bates accuse the researchers of wrongdoing?​

​

"It's not deep fraud or anything," said Bates. "It's more a series of biases that seem to lead in one direction."​

​

Researchers on Karl's team say they have struggled to understand what he's talking about.​

​

Even if the details of Bates' complaints were true, they wouldn't support his more inflammatory accusations, according to Karl. For example, Bates claimed that Karl constantly had his "thumb on the scale" in an effort to increase the apparent rate of warming in recent years. But his specific accusations mostly deal with whether the researchers followed data processing and archiving procedures that Bates helped develop. These procedures wouldn't have changed the findings of the study at all, according to Karl. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth in California, agrees.​

​

"Nothing in Bates' post provides any evidence that Karl et al. manipulated the data or specifically tried to show more warming," Hausfather told Inside Science in an email. Hausfather wasn't involved in the Karl study, but he replicated its key findings in a study published in Science Advances. When he saw Bates' accusations, he published a blow-by-blow rebuttal on the blog CarbonBrief.​

​

Bates also accused Karl of rushing publication for political purposes, timing it to influence the Paris climate talks. Karl and his colleagues deny that their research was rushed, and say there was never any discussion of getting it out before the climate summit in Paris. And despite his accusation, Bates told Inside Science that he doesn't remember any such conversations, either. He confirmed that the political motivation was a guess, based only on the pace of the research and the date when it came out.​

​

Karl and his colleagues are equally perplexed by Bates' explanations of exactly what they did wrong. Much of Bates' concern seems to be whether the researchers used a data archiving process called Climate Data Records, which Bates helped develop. According to Karl, this process was meant to be the "gold standard" for managing operational datasets -- huge troves of data that are continually updated with new measurements from satellites, land stations, ocean buoys and other sources. The full CDR process is costly and time-consuming, and involves having engineers rewrite the software that turns measurements into useful metrics like monthly temperature averages, said Karl. But in theory, this effort pays off with more reliable databases that are easy for a wide range of people to use.​

​

In practice, scientists have mixed views on whether the CDR standard and similar processes are worth the trouble. Karl said he was enthusiastic about it at first, even convincing Congress to allocate money for it. But the money soon ran out, and it has proven harder than expected to update the databases when scientists develop better ways to calculate climate metrics from raw measurements.​

​

Climate scientists at other institutions don't necessarily embrace the CDR approach, either. Hausfather said that neither his institution at Berkeley Earth nor the Hadley Center in the United Kingdom uses the highly engineered CDR data format. And Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who wrote a blog post contesting Bates' claims and used to work with the NOAA researchers, warns against equating engineering maturity with data quality.​

​

"You can have the best engineered climate data record in the world, and it can be flat out scientifically wrong," he said. "And you can have a dataset, the process engineering of which is ropey as hell, that scientifically is closer to the truth."​

​

One of Bates' main criticisms of the Karl study was that it used land temperature data that had not gone through a CDR-like process. The researchers could have used an older, fully processed version of the dataset, but that would have meant throwing out most of their land data. Alternatively, they could have waited for the dataset to be formally updated. NOAA is working on the update, said Karl, but as of February 2017, it's still not ready.​

​

The researchers aren't sure why Bates objects to their use of land data that hasn't gone through the CDR process. Thomas Peterson -- another former NOAA scientist, and one of the authors of the Karl study -- interpreted Bates' blog post to mean that researchers must apply the CDR process or similar processes to all data before they can publish scientific papers about it. "I think that is what John is saying. But I can't be completely sure," he wrote in an email.​

​

Karl declined to speculate.​

​

"What I have a hard time telling is what's in John Bates' mind, and what does he think -- what does he think the NOAA procedures were?" said Karl.​

​

Bates shed some light on the issue in an interview with Inside Science. He agreed with Karl and Peterson that not all NOAA climate studies have to use CDR data, but said that Karl's team ignored procedures that had been established for this particular dataset.​

​

"At that point, we were doing everything that way," he said. "But all of a sudden, there was this exception."​

​

Bates had a chance to raise concerns before the study was published, since he arranged the internal review, said Karl. That much is true, said Bates -- he signed off on the study, but he didn't learn about the problems until after it was published. His job, he said, was just to select an anonymous reviewer and look for things that might embarrass NOAA, such as the authors endorsing a product. When he read the paper during the review process, he didn't have the supplementary materials that described the data and analysis, and he wasn't looking for science content.​

​

Some former NOAA employees have speculated that Bates' accusations are about more than data. In 2012, Karl demoted Bates from a managerial position due to interpersonal issues with other staff members. But Bates denies that this personal history played a role. He searched deep inside himself, he said, to be sure that his motivation was the data -- "not a feud between myself and Tom Karl."​

​

The Karl study has sparked controversy ever since it was published. The study deals with the period between about 1998 and 2012, when global temperatures were rising more slowly than at other times in recent history. Some researchers have called this period a global warming "hiatus," and climate skeptics have used it to dismiss fears about rising global temperatures. The Karl study appeared to undercut these arguments by showing that temperatures had been rising faster than previously thought.​

​

But even if there were a warming hiatus, it wouldn't discredit human-caused climate change, said Fyfe. Researchers view temporary lulls in surface temperature increases as an expected part of the global warming process. Now, Fyfe notes, surface temperatures appear to be spiking again, with record warmth three years in a row.​

​

"Society should be aware that this is not just a straight line. There are going to be, you know, ups and downs to the warming," said Fyfe.​

​

For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.​

​

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."​

​

Obviously climate scientists and the main stream liberal news media will try to debunk any claims of fudging information on global warming.

The problem is people no longer trust the media as they once did. The media has lied to us before. It largely comes down to the old saying. “One aww shit is worth 1000 attaboys.

Add the fact that many of the early predictions of global warming were inaccurate at best. For example snow was supposed to be a rare event today.

A tale of two polls: media consumption and trust are down - Poynter

Americans are following the news less closely than they used to, and 39% of American adults have no trust in it at all.

www.poynter.org

 

[Crick]

Obviously climate scientists and the main stream liberal news media will try to debunk any claims of fudging information on global warming.

The problem is people no longer trust the media as they once did. The media has lied to us before. It largely comes down to the old saying. “One aww shit is worth 1000 attaboys.

Add the fact that many of the early predictions of global warming were inaccurate at best. For example snow was supposed to be a rare event today.

A tale of two polls: media consumption and trust are down - Poynter

Americans are following the news less closely than they used to, and 39% of American adults have no trust in it at all.

www.poynter.org

View attachment 871057

That was YOUR article I posted. Yet you now claim it has a bias. Convenient.

No peer reviewed science ever claimed that snow would be rare on the planet by 2024. Predictions like that do not originate on my side of this argument. They come from the PR factories of the fossil fuel industy

 

[luiza]

You need a little education.

LIE : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Still waiting for some evidence of... well... anything.

Far better to be an unwitting liar than someone who is just ignorant and is so Cognitively Rigid that they choose to live in a Fake world .

Take your pick Crock .

 

[Crick]

Far better to be an unwitting liar than someone who is just ignorant and is so Cognitively Rigid that they choose to live in a Fake world .

Take your pick Crock .

I was waiting for someone to provide evidence that I had intentionally posted falsehoods. You've failed.

 

[Batcat]

That was YOUR article I posted. Yet you now claim it has a bias. Convenient.

No peer reviewed science ever claimed that snow would be rare on the planet by 2024. Predictions like that do not originate on my side of this argument. They come from the PR factories of the fossil fuel industy

There have been plenty of wrong predictions by prominent people including climate scientists. If we are indeed having a global warming crisis, it doesn’t help to have people yelling, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” You global warming advocates should discourage such bullshit. You make stupid, scary predictions that totally flop and you get laughed at. Politicians making predictions don’t help either. Few people actually believe much AOC has to say about anything.

Ocasio-Cortez Calls Climate Change 'Our World War II'

The freshman congresswoman urged Americans to address global warming immediately to avoid the end of human existence, calling climate change "our World War II."

www.newsweek.com

I will admit I could be wrong and man made global warming is real. I do agree the earth is warming but feel it is part of a cycle and we are coming out of a cooling trend.

All the Times Global Warming Predictions Were Dead Wrong

We've heard so much nonsense over the past half-century when it comes to global warming predictions. These 10 failed global warming predictions prove that there's hardly a 'consensus' about how the climate is changing

www.westernjournal.com

You seem to favor peer review.That‘s nice but peer review can have problems too.

The Peer-Review Dilemma

Scientific publication can be a constraining, flattening, and maddening process—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

www.theatlantic.com

snip

In recent months, two loud public discussions have taken up the question of what scientists really think of their research. “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” the climatologist Patrick Brown wrote in an essay posted earlier this month, just days after his research had appeared in the journal Nature. The paper’s main finding, that global warming makes extreme wildfires more common, was based on a willful oversimplification of reality, he confessed—and it did not represent his private view that other factors are as or more important.

snip

Is scientific insincerity really a problem? Facts, as the saying goes, don’t care about our feelings; science is supposed to be the land of facts. Data are presented, discussed, confirmed, or discredited—all on their own terms. Belief has nothing to do with it, and forensically dissecting an author’s motivations has little practical value. But the public’s skepticism of science remains significant. People want to know what the research community might be keeping from them. Brown’s essay, which accused scientific journals of bias, was published by The Free Press, an outlet devoted to “stories that are ignored or misconstrued in the service of an ideological narrative.” The Free Press’s science section is awash in references to censorship, deception, and lies. Only bad news is newsworthy in some corners of the media; shady science has become a dominant narrative in its own right.

The Andersen, Brown, and Ladapo controversies suggest that scientists’ personal views—and the way they get run through the publication meat grinder—are likely to remain a source of scandal. When an unpalatable result cannot be dismissed out of hand, we turn to a simpler explanation: human nature. The science is wrong because the scientists are being insincere. It’s too easy to assume that if they’d only tell us what they really think, the facts would be on our side.

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen previously predicted that much of New York City would be underwater by 2008.

dailycaller.com

snip


Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and saidNew York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

“And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change,” he said.

Hansen also predicted that global warming would cause a drastic rise in crime in the Big Apple, because “you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Hansen may have been talking about a sea-level rise 40 years from 1998, but that wouldn’t make any difference as the level of rise Hansen was predicting still hasn’t happened.

 

[skookerasbil]

Numerous posters here have claimed to have evidence that:

1) The world is not getting warmer

2) The oceans are not rising

3) The cryosphere is not melting

4) Climate scientists are lying to us, AGW is a liberal/democratic hoax

I thought it might be handy to have one spot to put all that amazing stuff. Here you go, oh me brothers.

How about this....

Where is there any evidence people are caring? Where is there any evidence any of the science is mattering in the real world?

Internet banter is ghey....akin to group navel gazing. Facts.

The energy policymakers don't give a fcuk!

 

[Crick]

There have been plenty of wrong predictions by prominent people including climate scientists. If we are indeed having a global warming crisis, it doesn’t help to have people yelling, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” You global warming advocates should discourage such bullshit. You make stupid, scary predictions that totally flop and you get laughed at. Politicians making predictions don’t help either. Few people actually believe much AOC has to say about anything.

Ocasio-Cortez Calls Climate Change 'Our World War II'

The freshman congresswoman urged Americans to address global warming immediately to avoid the end of human existence, calling climate change "our World War II."

www.newsweek.com

I will admit I could be wrong and man made global warming is real. I do agree the earth is warming but feel it is part of a cycle and we are coming out of a cooling trend.

View attachment 871441

All the Times Global Warming Predictions Were Dead Wrong

We've heard so much nonsense over the past half-century when it comes to global warming predictions. These 10 failed global warming predictions prove that there's hardly a 'consensus' about how the climate is changing

www.westernjournal.com

You seem to favor peer review.That‘s nice but peer review can have problems too.

The Peer-Review Dilemma

Scientific publication can be a constraining, flattening, and maddening process—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

www.theatlantic.com

snip

In recent months, two loud public discussions have taken up the question of what scientists really think of their research. “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” the climatologist Patrick Brown wrote in an essay posted earlier this month, just days after his research had appeared in the journal Nature. The paper’s main finding, that global warming makes extreme wildfires more common, was based on a willful oversimplification of reality, he confessed—and it did not represent his private view that other factors are as or more important.

snip

Is scientific insincerity really a problem? Facts, as the saying goes, don’t care about our feelings; science is supposed to be the land of facts. Data are presented, discussed, confirmed, or discredited—all on their own terms. Belief has nothing to do with it, and forensically dissecting an author’s motivations has little practical value. But the public’s skepticism of science remains significant. People want to know what the research community might be keeping from them. Brown’s essay, which accused scientific journals of bias, was published by The Free Press, an outlet devoted to “stories that are ignored or misconstrued in the service of an ideological narrative.” The Free Press’s science section is awash in references to censorship, deception, and lies. Only bad news is newsworthy in some corners of the media; shady science has become a dominant narrative in its own right.

The Andersen, Brown, and Ladapo controversies suggest that scientists’ personal views—and the way they get run through the publication meat grinder—are likely to remain a source of scandal. When an unpalatable result cannot be dismissed out of hand, we turn to a simpler explanation: human nature. The science is wrong because the scientists are being insincere. It’s too easy to assume that if they’d only tell us what they really think, the facts would be on our side.

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen previously predicted that much of New York City would be underwater by 2008.

dailycaller.com

snip


Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and saidNew York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

“And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change,” he said.

Hansen also predicted that global warming would cause a drastic rise in crime in the Big Apple, because “you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Hansen may have been talking about a sea-level rise 40 years from 1998, but that wouldn’t make any difference as the level of rise Hansen was predicting still hasn’t happened.

Almost none of your predictions there come from climate scientists and the ones that do were heavily qualified. As far the glacial-interglacial cycle, we are past the interglacial peak. The Earth had been cooling for 5,000 years on its way to the next glacial period before AGW began.