|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2015 08:48 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 08:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 22 2015 08:43 Millitron wrote:On February 22 2015 08:26 Nyxisto wrote:On February 22 2015 08:22 Millitron wrote:On February 22 2015 08:02 Nyxisto wrote:On February 22 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:
if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth. maybe because it's fucking idiotic to wear a symbol that stands for the deaths of tens of millions of people at a gay pride parade? Except it's an ancient symbol from way before the 1940's. Hindus use it, Finland used it, the Greeks and Romans used it. The guy neither said nor did anything to imply he was a Nazi. The crowd jumped to conclusions because they're bigots. You have to be fucking kidding me. The next time some guy in a Klan costume appears in a black neighbourhood you're going to tell me that maybe he just liked pointy hats? Did you watch the video? Did the guy do ANYTHING to offend anyone? Yeah, he wore a shirt with a modern meaning that is deeply polarizing and offensive, and knew exactly what he was doing because he did this purely for a "social experiment" and wanted a negative reaction. Then when he's called out on it, people like you try to defend it by saying "it's not his fault for pretending that modern symbolism doesn't exist, it's everyone else's for not being a historian." It IS everyone's fault for getting worked up when he did nothing but wear a T-shirt. He wasn't shouting anti-Semitic slurs, he wasn't harassing people. He was just walking. are you actually autistic?
User was warned for this post
|
On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source
Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all.
However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
|
Yeah, this is the only relevant paragraph in the article:
Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards of publishing.
I guess Greenpeace and/or the NYT counted 8 so far that would fall under this category, which is a naughty thing to do in research and causes a loss of trust, which is critical to any scientist's reputation and credibility.
I would note that despite some big names quoted in the article breathlessly demanding extreme responses like retractions, it would be pretty surprising if that actually happened in the absence of contradictory data or more direct evidence that he tampered with the data (i.e. that his conclusions are misleading or incorrect). At worst, he could and probably will offer some corrections to his papers to add the disclosures, since they don't change his conclusions. It was a pretty dumb and shady thing to do to not put them in though.
|
On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the guy's choice of offensive symbol was just stupid even for his own cause lol. maybe wear some sort of bitches and whores shirt and beat up feminists with other MRAs would be more popular online.
|
Most people in the United States support President Barack Obama’s proposal to raise investment taxes on high-income families, according to the results of an Associated Press-GfK poll.
The poll results released Sunday said 68 percent of those questioned said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes; only 11 percent said the wealthy pay too much. Also, 60 percent said middle-class households pay too much in federal taxes, while 7 percent said they paid too little.
Obama laid out a series of tax proposals as part of his 2016 budget released this month. Few are likely to win approval in the Republican-controlled Congress. But if fellow Democrats were to embrace his ideas, they could play a role in the 2016 race.
The findings echo the populist messages of two liberal senators — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — being courted by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to run for president in 2016. The results also add weight to Obama’s new push to raise taxes on the rich and use some of the revenue to lower taxes on the middle class.
It’s not flying with Republicans in Congress, who oppose higher taxes. But Bob Montgomery of Martinsville, Virginia, said people with higher incomes should pay more.
“I think the more you make the more taxes you should pay,” said Montgomery, who is retired after working 40 years at an auto dealership. “I can’t see where a man makes $50,000 a year pays as much taxes as somebody that makes $300,000 a year.”
One proposal would increase capital gains taxes on households making more than $500,000. In the survey, 56 percent favored the proposal, while only 16 percent opposed it.
Source
|
On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors.
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Source
|
On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Show nested quote +Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source
Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
|
On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
Besides, way to strawman. Why don't you try to justify the blatant falsification of evidence by your impartial scientist? You know, the ones that, have so much evidence on their side to declare global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate disruption/insert catch phrase of the week here a fact, have to resort to doctoring data in a nonsensical fashion?
Any before any of you global warming zealots get in full gear, the issue here is not necessarily that the NCDC made temperature adjustments, but rather the biased and totally anti-scientific way in which they did them, just in an attempt to reach the conclusion they wanted. I guess science has devolved from a quest for knowledge to altering data to confirm preconceived bias.
|
On February 24 2015 04:41 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand. Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
|
On February 24 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 04:41 hannahbelle wrote:On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand. Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony... No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite.
You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
|
I thought people were done with this caricature.
|
On February 24 2015 04:59 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 04:41 hannahbelle wrote:On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand. Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony... No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it. Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite. You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
Has there been any rebuttal to Goddard's charge yet?
|
The problem is the misnomer "Global Warming," whoever came up with that should be fired. It just gives ammunition to the proudly ignorant subsection of the American populace who want to claim global climate change isn't a thing whenever it snows in their state. There is plenty of good data out there to show climate change, even if some unethical scientists played around with a subset of it. And that's taking the word of a couple of bloggers over, you know, the actual scientific community.
Think about it this way: if the climate change "debate" could be decided just by throwing money at scientists, why is there so much more data showing it exists than showing it doesn't? Do you really think the parties interested in disproving climate change would lose that battle?
|
On February 24 2015 04:59 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 04:41 hannahbelle wrote:On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand. Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony... No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it. Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite. You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
How many times does the "this will tank the economy" line have to be shown to be wrong before people on the right will stop using it?
I have no 'gods'... I'm sure there are legitimate questions about the extremity of climate change and what we can do about it. What isn't really a question is whether mankind has any influence or that it is happening. Rather than battle the minutia of exactly what the data suggests I'd be happy to get past the "I am not a scientist" and replace it with "I disagree with the science and here is why" (without it being a reference from the bible like they have for the last decade or so).
|
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
|
On February 24 2015 05:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 04:59 hannahbelle wrote:On February 24 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 04:41 hannahbelle wrote:On February 24 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 22 2015 23:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 22 2015 11:46 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 22 2015 10:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden. Source Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best. Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened. It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors. Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Source Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand. Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony... No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it. Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite. You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords. Has there been any rebuttal to Goddard's charge yet?
Not that I have found. Mostly its the NCDC claiming that they did adjustments but they are sticking to them.
|
On February 24 2015 05:09 ZasZ. wrote:
The problem is the misnomer "Global Warming," whoever came up with that should be fired. It just gives ammunition to the proudly ignorant subsection of the American populace who want to claim global climate change isn't a thing whenever it snows in their state. There is plenty of good data out there to show climate change, even if some unethical scientists played around with a subset of it. And that's taking the word of a couple of bloggers over, you know, the actual scientific community.
Think about it this way: if the climate change "debate" could be decided just by throwing money at scientists, why is there so much more data showing it exists than showing it doesn't? Do you really think the parties interested in disproving climate change would lose that battle?
It's not necessarily the words of bloggers. Try debating the actual facts and not the messenger. If the message is accurate, it doesn't matter if the story is written by a journalist, an alien, or Aljazeera America.
The facts are that the data was changed. NCDC admits as much. The other fact is that they manipulated the data in a way that defies the scientific norm to reach a conclusion that their funding agent wanted them to conclude.
|
On February 24 2015 05:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I thought people were done with this caricature. Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect. If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
|
On February 24 2015 05:28 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 05:17 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I thought people were done with this caricature. Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect. If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time. This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you. I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all. Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will. I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
This is the last time i respond to you. I wish there was an ignore function on TL. Sadly you are trolling at exactly the level that won't get you banned, and probably will get people banned for getting angry at you. Thus i will ignore you from now on, even if you choose to directly insult me again.
Your positions are so clichée insane that i find it hard to believe that you are not trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
