"NOAA makes up their own numbers" Topic

link

But wait, we only do science by consensus now so ignore the little men behind the curtain.

How do you "do science by consensus"? And what are "Owen Numbers"?

This is a blog which asks for funding with the catch phrase, "Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!" Ya………riiiiight.

Lucky for Steven Goddard (doyen of realclimatescience) has the Heartland Institute (which is funded by Exxonmobil and the Koch brothers) to bankroll him. Otherwise, he might have get a real job. Possibly writing pulp scifi or fantasy (lord knows he knows nothing of real science…).

Oh noes! Not the dastardly Koch Brothers!

So adjusting your numbers to fit your theory s good science, but if the science is funded outside of the climate change circle it is bad -even if done honestly

"we only do science by consensus"

Indeed! So true. :)

Dan

So adjusting your numbers to fit your theory s good science, but if the science is funded outside of the climate change circle it is bad -even if done honestly

According to that one dubious blog. One that requires me to consider that NASA is in cahoots with the Chinese in fabricating AGW.

This provides serious scientific discourse the same way Alex Jones provides serious political insight.

"we only do science by consensus"

Indeed! So true.

No, not really.

That there is a scientific consensus (a pejorative term, here on TMP) amounts to the fact that a given theory better explains the data and observations collected by scientists. That doesn't make it "true". It just makes it a better model with better explanative and predictive powers than competing theories. The consensus is that there is a collective agreement amongst those in that field about which theory works the best.

No one complains about the "scientific consensus" of astronomers on the heliocentric theory, or that of geologists regarding the movement of continents. The complaints only come about when the consensus is of a theory that challenges deeply held philosophical, political and religious beliefs. And "doing science by consensus" is a meaningless statement.

That is why there is always contention regarding the theory of evolution, the theory of the age of the universe, and the theory of AGW. Or, you can believe that there is a cabal of nefarious biologists, astrophysicists and climate scientists whose only goal is to remove the freedoms of the unsuspecting public.

Please pass the

Lets just put the consilience of evidence that does not need a thermometer (retreating glaciers, shrinking arctic sea ice, poleward migration on land and in the sea, lengthening of growing seasons, melting permafrost, shift in the planet's long-wave radiation spectrum, change in the IR properties of the atmosphere needing modification on heat seeking missile algorithms due to increased absorption…) off to the side, and deal with the temperature record.

The unfortunate thing about dealing with claims that rest on excrement of male Bos Tauros is that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk them than it takes to invent them. But why make an effort when it's already done, especially when it's a close cousin to many failed attempts in the past.

Here's Dr Kevin Cowtan who does an admirable job on his youtube channel explaining how and why temperature adjustments are made when calculating average temperature anomalies.

YouTube link

YouTube link

No one complains about the "scientific consensus" of astronomers on the heliocentric theory, or that of geologists regarding the movement of continents. The complaints only come about when the consensus is of a theory that challenges deeply held philosophical, political and religious beliefs. And "doing science by consensus" is a meaningless statement.

Do you think that Al Einstein would be famous if he submitted papers saying that this English chap called Newton nailed gravity once and for all? That's a silly notion.

So I'll give a question that would not be out of place at a academic conference.

For the sake of the argument, say that the temperature record was maliciously altered. How do you explain the other lines of evidence I presented earlier? Did the glaciers decide to suddenly collapse at the same time for no good reason? Did a whole bunch of species suddenly get wonderlust in only one direction? How about the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them? We are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere after all – and John Tyndall demonstrated those perperties of CO2 back in a time when slavery was still a thing in the USA…

…back in a time when slavery was still a thing in the USA…

That's less than a century, but I suppose in a country in which "as far back as 2005!" is a significant statement regarding event frequency, you have a point. ; )

…when the consensus is of a theory that challenges deeply held philosophical, political and religious beliefs.

Agreed, though I think a significantly greater percentage of those objections stem from the latter beliefs than the other two: No one loses their immortal soul if they change political parties.

The free pass given religious thought (is that one of those Carlin oxymorons?) in regard to analysis/criticism is, I believe, a powerful source/fuel for the 'post-fact' world the recent presidential election highlighted, and which threatens the survival of science.

Dunno if I've already crossed the line, but may as well throw in a commercial:

This election, US voters either didn't care if candidates lied to them, or never learned the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate evidence or lack of it. In other words, contempt for evidence – for reality – is no barrier to electoral success. And the media did little to help. Nor is this just during elections. Every day, unsupported claims are made by politicians about science and the environment and almost no one challenges them.

ScienceDebate.org is going to. In fact, we're going to challenge the whole concept of evidence-free voting and evidence-free politics. We are going to organize science debates across the country on local science/environment issues during elections in 2018 and 2020. We're expanding or relationship with YouTube. We are working on new ways to deliver a flow of original science policy news while at the same time holding politicians accountable for anti-science and anti-environment policies. We are planning a congressional lecture series in Washington. And we are developing various pro-science film and video projects to emphasize the vital importance of science to everyone's lives.

For the sake of the argument, say that the temperature record was maliciously altered. How do you explain the other lines of evidence I presented earlier?

Yes, that's the problem with consilience. You could pretend that Darwin never existed and that therefore, his books were never published. The consilience of every modern science would still point towards having natural selection being the best explanation for biodiversity. The anti-Darwinists only have a consilience towards Creationism. At least that points to something.

Those climate scientists that are not part of the consensus cannot explain why the miniscule bit of contrarian research doesn't point to anything in particular. If AGW is wrong, where is the consilience of the opposing theories?

…where is the consilience of the opposing theories?

In the middle drawer of the desk?
Where they least expect it?
In the last place they look?

c'mon people: publish your favorite!

I have always said they were working under the assumption there data was correct in the first place.

Stephan Lewandowsky did a series of papers this year on the lack of consilience (and flat out denial of scientific convention by economist Richard Tol) in Climate Change denial and conspiracy theories.

link

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth's climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe "is cooling" can coexist with claims that the "observed warming is natural" and that "the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us." Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that "something must be wrong" with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

Although virtually all experts agree that CO2 emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming, public discourse is replete with contrarian claims that either deny that global warming is happening or dispute a human influence. Although the rejection of climate science is known to be driven by ideological, psychological, and political factors rather than scientific disagreement, contrarian views have considerable prominence in the media. A better understanding of contrarian discourse is therefore called for. We report a blind expert test of contrarian claims about climatological variables. Expert economists and statisticians were presented with representative contrarian statements (e.g., "Arctic ice is recovering") translated into an economic or demographic context. In that blind test, contrarian claims were found to be misleading. By contrast, mainstream scientific interpretations of the data were judged to be accurate and policy relevant. The results imply that media inclusion of contrarian statements may increase bias rather than balance.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Guys,

These days weather is relative. Just ask my menopausal wife. It could be snowing a storm outside but, if she says turn up the AC, I turn up the AC … if I want to stay in my house. Dissent, even the possibility of it, is not an option. The Age of Reason is over.

Decisions like that are taking place everywhere, by people who don't want to get "Lynched". :)

Dan

Yes they are using their own made up numbers since the story that they are trying to push is not happening with when you use the actual "Real" numbers.

And your evidence to back up this claim? And who is "they"?

How about you try Google and just see how many hits you Get?

As too who well that would be the Global Warmers/Climate Changers who want to control every aspect of your life.

In any intelligent discourse the burden of proof falls upon the claimant. You claim that climate scientists, as a group, lie, falsify and manipulate data to ostensibly push an agenda to control "every aspect of your life".

I have asked you many times to show me any evidence for this. I won't be doing your work for you. A Google search will only dredge up blogs and opinion pieces that will support your confirmation bias and not show any science. (The ironically named Realclimatescience and Climate Depot websites come to mind). Show me the evidence that this conspiracy has any merit.

Until then, dodge noted.

In related news, Mike Mann's lawsuit passes the anti-slapp motion with flying colors.

link

Okay since you seem incapable of Googling it.

climate scientists falsify data

link

climate scientists caught lying

link

scientists admit to lying about global warming

link

nasa falsified climate data

link

They your pick I gave you several, oh and there are several other ways to search for it as well.

When individuals want control and the real data is not helping then they will start to make up their own data so that is does.

It is happening and if you don't want to believe that it is that is your own choice.

… since you seem incapable of Googling it.

I'm not at all incapable, thanks for the concern. I wrote,"I won't be doing your work for you. A Google search will only dredge up blogs and opinion pieces that will support your confirmation bias and not show any science." And that's exactly what you did, so try to keep these conversations accurate.

Your links are exactly as I explained above and are mostly worthless to what was asked of you. Some are from scientifically legitimate blogs, some are from dubious blogs and most are from internet news articles. This doesn't qualify as science and none of these "searches" supports your contention that NOAA or NASA or any other such agency is making up data.

So I'll do the work for you after all. All the furor is over Dr. Karl Ewert's accusations that seem to only show up on denier blogs, Principia Scientific, Realclimatescience (like I guessed above), Breitbart and on the internet news (see your last link). Trying to find his references gives me:

"All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de."

Interesting, but why not use the email from his University affiliation, and more importantly, why isn't it published?

Since he came out with these claims, the data has been supported by the World Meterological Organization

public.wmo.int/en

The Japanese Meterological Agency

link

The Canadian Center for Climatic Modelling and Analysis (they have a nice page explaining all the modelling programs they use and why):

link

Looks like the conspiracy is way beyond just NASA or NOAA. The conspiracy is world wide. Also the Climategate nonsense has been investigated by many, including:

US Inspector General Dept. of Commerce

link

The Science and Technology Committee of the UK House of Commons (due to U of East Anglia's involvement)

PDF link

and the Environmental Protection Agency:

link

They find no wrong doing and no data manipulation. But you'll be so happy to find out that the incoming POTUS has named a famous AGW denier to head the EPA.

It is happening and if you don't want to believe that it is that is your own choice.

I guess I could say the same thing………about AGW. And by the way, "belief" has nothing to do with any of this

Here is the only thing I can find about being skeptical of Dr Ewert's finds. It's only a communal blog but the three answers bear reading:

link

"….then I'd say it's Prof. Ewert's job to provide evidence for his assertions, rather than anyone else's job to refute them."

Yes indeed. Perhaps start by publishing them in a peer reviewed journal. That's the way science is done.

When individuals want control and the real data is not helping then they will start to make up their own data so that is does.

More tinfoil hat nonsense. The idea of a vast worldwide conspiracy to push AGW (when you can't even get a handful of researchers to agree on where to go for lunch) is sadly pathetic…

"There's a similar kind of logic behind all [conspiracy theorist] groups, I think … They don't undertake to prove that their view is true [so much as to] find flaws in what the other side is saying."

—Ted Goertzel, sociology professor

link

Yes indeed. Perhaps start by publishing them in a peer reviewed journal. That's the way science is done.

And there's the crux of the problem. The Denier crowd, by all accounts, are not interested in doing science.

Bowman,

Your links are to the actual agencies who are gaming the numbers so yes they would approve them.

The North & South Pole should not have any ice per the Global Warmers/Climate Changers but it they still both have ice.

Mithmee says:

Your links are to the actual agencies who are gaming the numbers so yes they would approve them.

Let me get this straight.

There is a worldwide conspiracy between the over 170 national scientific academies, of which NASA is only one. All of which corroborate their "faulty" data. And all of which have policy statements recognizing the fact of AGW. (I know this because I researched the American, Canadian and European policy statements of these organization a few years back).

Then we have to include all the governments of the countries in the civilized world and their respective scientific and environmental agencies.

Then include international agencies such as CICERO, UArctic, the WMO, UNEP, and of course, the deniers favourite bugaboo, the IPCC (which represents 189 countries).

Then you have to consider agencies that are outside of the scope of climate science. How about the Pentagon and your DOD?

link

In 2015, the DOD submitted this report to Congress about identifying military responses to climate change related security threats. Here is their report:

link

So the military is in on this conspiracy too? And I would expect the military of every western country has prepared similar reports to their respective governments. I know my country has (CDA Institure analysis, Oct 2015) and:

link

Then consider the hundreds of universities worldwide and the thousands upon thousands of climate scientists and students. Remember climate science is a multi disciplinary study coming from fields as geology, geography, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, physical chemistry, oceanography, biology, ecology, etc. All these people, all the universities, and multiple science departments have to be in on the conspiracy.

Then there is the research. Published research into climate science only shows that 3% of papers conclude that global warming is not anthropogenic. So add all the science publication editors and peer reviewers into this conspiracy as they are clearly keeping the "truth" out of print.

And finally we have policy statements from organizations that admit that CO2 emissions cause global warming, and yet spend millions of dollars on denier lobby groups and policy advising "think tanks" in order to protect their financial interests. Like this from Exxon:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

link

So now Exxon is part of the conspiracy too?

Is this what you are trying to put across on a Science board? That there is such a vast worldwide conspiracy, all with the goal of eroding the freedoms of a susceptible American public?

Then you claim:

The North & South Pole should not have any ice per the Global Warmers/Climate Changers but it they still both have ice.

Where did you read that, Climate Depot? Did you look at any comments by the experts? I don't remember reading anything of the sort.

UArtic:

research.uarctic.org

National Snow and Ice Data Center:

link

The Smithsonian:

link

ACIA:

link

ESA's Cryogenic-Sat data:

link

The list goes on and on.

No one seems to state, "The North & South Pole should not have any ice……" I suspect this is just one more of your vague and unsubstantiated claims. Feel free to prove me wrong. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I forgot to address this previously.

How about you try Google and just see how many hits you Get?

And what does that prove?

I also googled "aliens in Roswell", "MMR vaccine causes autism", "chemtrails", and "flat earth", and each got a lot of hits too. What's your point?

Then you claim:

The North & South Pole should not have any ice per the Global Warmers/Climate Changers but it they still both have ice.

Where did you read that, Climate Depot? Did you look at any comments by the experts? I don't remember reading anything of the sort.

It's the standard denialist debating technique of taking a worst-case scenario, scrub all mitigating circumstances and milder projections, and treat it as a low-ball prediction so that they can ridicule "ivory tower idiots".

In this case, it's from a mid-2000s report saying that sea ice is vulnerable to rapid collapse, and a few successive years of record melting (highly unlikely – see reversion to the mean) could lead to total collapse in as little as 10 years. Scrub the caveats, and suddenly it looks like the scientists don't know nothing – especially to those pre-disposed to see watermelons* everywhere.

*Watermelon: The belief that the environmental movement is green on the outside, and communist on the inside.

Ignore Mithmee he is a well known realityphobic. On most things not just climate change.

"There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

If only that were as far as the agenda had taken us. But Al Gore is a perfect example of politicizing the "danger" of climate change. Making thousands of dollars, pushing for carbon credits/taxation and other manipulative, lucrative nonsense.

If the consensus pointed toward knowledge, toward agreement, toward propositions that change our energy grid without taxing the "common people" to pay for all the proposals, toward actual looming threats instead of suppositions, we the people would not react askance.

But the conspiracy is a non conspiracy: the agenda is in open view. Just look at the proposals and the junk already in place to be implemented. It is all about change: changing the way the developed and developing world lives. Punishment through forced payment. Nothing hidden about it!

"97%" of bonafide climatologists agree: AGW is real, AGCC at least. The part of the consensus that is not agreed is how much human effect there is. 2%? 100%? And everything in between.

So when an "expert" says that the consensus is about human caused, what the word "caused" should be replaced with is "influenced". Until we have been proven to cause 100% of CC, we are only influencing it. I think the distinction is of core importance. Because the word "caused" means you are assigning total blame. "Influenced" makes us accessory to change already happening. And that is a lot closer to the truth, imho.

Until how much influence has been established through "quantifying and assessing the risks", we should not be putting controls into place. Those all come from governments, along with their militaries. It is governments that have taken the scientific consensus and already gone way too far in implementing further controls. And there isn't anything conspiratorial about that either. It's right out in the open. It's mostly talk at conferences so far. Closed door sessions occur too. But so far nothing has clamped down on economic pursuits to damage business or the lifestyle I live. It needs to stay that way.

Consensus that humans are influencing CC should not even be an arguable point. Consensus on how much influence remains unresolved. And that cannot be emphasized too much………..

There is a worldwide conspiracy between the over 170 national scientific academies, of which NASA is only one. All of which corroborate their "faulty" data.

Yes when it comes to pushing an agenda.

All these people, all the universities, and multiple science departments have to be in on the conspiracy.

Well they all have the same agenda to push.

Where did you read that,

YouTube link

Al Gore and many others have been pushing this for years oh and he has made millions off of pushing this.

Thing is he has not once been right or will he ever be right.

So when an "expert" says that the consensus is about human caused, what the word "caused" should be replaced with is "influenced". Until we have been proven to cause 100% of CC, we are only influencing it. I think the distinction is of core importance. Because the word "caused" means you are assigning total blame. "Influenced" makes us accessory to change already happening. And that is a lot closer to the truth, imho.

If it makes you feel better than use "influenced" instead of "caused". Because it's all about feeling good about yourself, isn't it? That's even closer to the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmTX_e6Vf8

Totally, totally pathetic.

You make a claim, and you are asked to support it. So you link to a YouTube video entitled,

"Seven years ago today…….Al Gore predicted North Pole would be ice free in 5 years"

The only trouble is that you, and the moron who posted the video and titled it, never bothered to actually watch it. Al Gore says nothing of the sort, as two of the less stupid commentators on YouTube actually point out. Watch it again.

I asked, " Where did you read that?" I couldn't imagine you read the title of a video that you didn't watch. Truly pathetic.

……and he has made millions off of pushing this.

Making thousands of dollars, pushing for carbon credits/taxation and other manipulative, lucrative nonsense

I think Mithmee and GWA should put on their , channel each other and coordinate their conspiratorial nonsense. Try to be consistent.

Thing is he has not once been right or will he ever be right.

Well now you both have something in common with him.

Well they all have the same agenda to push.

Riiiiihght.

Don't count on converting a conspiracy theorist. However, some questions can determine if a conspiracy theory is warranted or not

Logistics
How large is the supposed conspiracy?
How many people are part of this conspiracy?
Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
What infrastructure and resources does it need?
How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
Where are the secret conferences held?
How do they keep track of membership?
If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?

Benefits
Who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price?
Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way?
If it is an old conspiracy—who gains what from maintaining it?.

Exposure
How likely is it to remain covered up if it has gone on for a long time?
If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected?
Why have none of them leaked the story?
If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?

Plausibility
Does belief in this theory require accepting inherently contradictive premises that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized, clever, and hopelessly incompetent—all at the same time?

From Rational Wiki
link

As usual we arrive at the last step in the "Scientific Method"…the Hissyfit.

Are we doing science here, and needing to conform to any scientific method?

Obviously not…

Then why bring it up?

Because someone is lying and creating data that is not true.

Because someone is lying………

I thought your position was that everybody is lying.

Well, EVERYBODY HAS to be lying. Or else this VAST conspiracy couldn't possibly get off the ground….

RIIIIIGHT…..

Mithmee has definitely entered the fringe…. And gone beyond…