Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists - The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee today said they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content...ly-clears.html

British Panel Clears Scientists - Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science

Oxburgh Report Clears Controversial Climate Research Unit - "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...-research-unit

U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) studied every e-mail that had been hacked at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations - The 2-month inquiry has found that Mann is innocent of the remaining charge of scientific misconduct that had been raised by e-mails uncovered in November.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...ce-allegations

No ‘Research Misconduct’ by Climate-Change Scientist, U.S. Says - Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tering-inquiry

Those news articles are written in a general fashion and are meant to placate the adel-brained and incurious masses in order to keep the money flowing in. The video is just a complete distortion of what actually took place, but taken in context with the articles they proved sufficient to keep the Doomsday Cult believers in the fold.

This expose' barely scratches the surface of what actually took place:

https://www.conservapedia.com/index....le=Climategate

[Genava]

Those news articles are written in a general fashion and are meant to placate the adel-brained and incurious masses in order to keep the money flowing in. The video is just a complete distortion of what actually took place, but taken in context with the articles they proved sufficient to keep the Doomsday Cult believers in the fold.

This expose' barely scratches the surface of what actually took place:

https://www.conservapedia.com/index....le=Climategate

Anyway I will never change your mind. But I find amusing how much you are refusing to acknowledge anything wrong from your contrarian side.

Obviously several quotes from the climategate hacking, commonly shared on conservative medias, have been manipulated and put without any context to suggest the opposite of what they meant with the context. Obviously, those are lies and manipulations from your contrarian side. But you didn't care. This is like all these manipulations doesn't count for you.

This is the same than with this figure when I asked your thought about this and you started a circular logic to defend at any cost your position because the NOAA is faking data in your mind. Your position suggests that if they are wrong somewhere, any lies about them are forgivable and justified. This is funny.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

B.W. can I have your opinion on this figure shared by WUWT in an article?



This figure is misleading because it took the two datasets from two different institutions without considering that they have different baselines for the reference.



Are you comfortable with this level of evident dishonesty? This level of lie?

Same question for Common Soldier too.

I wanted only to point it out that there are dishonesty and lies among the contrarian arguments and it should at least rise the need to have a cautious approach in listening to those arguments. Something you are clearly lacking.

[Stario]

@Geneva
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

Have you even read the article? You gotta be a real fool to believe the global warming scaremonger crowd after such damming revelations.

[Genava]

@Geneva
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

Have you even read the article? You gotta be a real fool to believe the global warming scaremonger crowd after such damming revelations.

Yeah sure. But it is only a matter of taking his words for it, it's a storytelling. And as in all storytelling, there are some discrepancies, notably when he accused for mismanagement on some aspects of the process validation while... he was in charge of the process. Moreover in Facts Contradict Science Committee Majority’s Attack on NOAA’s Climate Scientists:

<< Furthermore, Dr. Bates wrote in his approval of the Karl manuscript, that he later criticized in The Mail on Sunday story, “It is a pleasure to approve your manuscript….this is an important paper. It will be highly controversial and so the roll out and support for follow up should be carefully planned and fully staffed…. Thank you for your fine contribution, and success with your submission.” Understandably, the Majority has still not released this key document as it undercuts Dr. Bates’ own assertions about the Karl study. >>

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-thing-burger/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lly-confirmed/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ng-pause-study

And finally, if the accusations are true, why they used this misleading figure obviously wrong? Something so wrong that anybody with a little bit of experience in climate science would not have done without knowing the dishonesty and the lies behind it.

This is only my point, there are obvious manipulations and lies in the contrarian narrative.

[Stario]

Yeah sure. But it is only a matter of taking his words for it, it's a storytelling...

The problem is this is not the only source of "storytelling" out there- when you put it in perspective together with all the other sources a simple GOOGLE search reveals- accusing NOAA/NASA of data tampering is gravely concerning to put it in a polite way.

[Genava]

There is a huge number of accusations, it is true. But my previous point was to show that the contrarian side does not hesitate to lie and to manipulate the information to mislead people and to please their zealots. This is why it should at least rise concern about the veracity of the accusation and indeed when I look in most of the accusations, I see gross exaggeration, deformation and jumping to conclusion. So the quantity is there, like in most pseudoscience network they live for it, but the quality is not. Which is concerning when they present themselves as truthseekers and moral zealots.

[conon394]

@Geneva
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

Have you even read the article? You gotta be a real fool to believe the global warming scaremonger crowd after such damming revelations.

read it and it was debunked

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...-finds-bupkis/

[Daruwind]

@Conon394 another checkmate to Stario and W.B. and their faulty logic

[Stario]

It's "Game Over"- NASA now tampering with raw data too!!!
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/nasa-now-tampering-with-raw-data-too/

[JP226]

UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists - The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee today said they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content...ly-clears.html

British Panel Clears Scientists - Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science

Oxburgh Report Clears Controversial Climate Research Unit - "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...-research-unit

U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) studied every e-mail that had been hacked at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations - The 2-month inquiry has found that Mann is innocent of the remaining charge of scientific misconduct that had been raised by e-mails uncovered in November.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...ce-allegations

No ‘Research Misconduct’ by Climate-Change Scientist, U.S. Says - Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tering-inquiry

I bet I could've found several government sanctioned reports describing Jews as subhuman back in the '30's.

[B. W.]

A little more on Climate Gate and this shows just how bad the intent was by the AGW folks to perpetuate this hoax:

http://www.passionforliberty.com/201...-manipulation/

Absolutely incredible, but it gets worse. As soon as I can find the time, I'll try and post something showing how the tree ring data was manipulated and I promise it will blow your mind.

[Genava]

It's "Game Over"- NASA now tampering with raw data too!!!
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/nasa-now-tampering-with-raw-data-too/

OMG it is explained in the FAQ, another unintelligent and conspiracy theory built on dishonesty and lies...

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/index.html#q206

Why are you believing anything you see without checking, it would have took you 2 minutes... So naive, so blind, so dogmatic...

[Cyclops]

It's "Game Over"- NASA now tampering with raw data too!!!
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/nasa-now-tampering-with-raw-data-too/

I have to say you don't post in good faith. Its a shame as the subject is interesting and it doesn't need nonsense posts like yours stinking it up.

I bet I could've found several government sanctioned reports describing Jews as subhuman back in the '30's.

Irrelevant and asinine comment: are you trolling or do you think Nazi pseudoscience is a legitimate aspect of this discussion?

The "climategate" nonsense is based on low tier fakes. There's a consensus about climate change in the scientific community, based around data. Denial comes from a tiny sector of privately funded researchers and is overwhelmingly nonsensical. There's also outright propaganda and lies from proven frauds making up a significant proportion of denial.

Picking apart minor disagreements among legitimate researchers and building laughable conspiracy theories around clumsily edited interviews is about as much as denial has got.

[B. W.]

I have to say you don't post in good faith. Its a shame as the subject is interesting and it doesn't need nonsense posts like yours stinking it up.


Irrelevant and asinine comment: are you trolling or do you think Nazi pseudoscience is a legitimate aspect of this discussion?

The "climategate" nonsense is based on low tier fakes. There's a consensus about climate change in the scientific community, based around data. Denial comes from a tiny sector of privately funded researchers and is overwhelmingly nonsensical. There's also outright propaganda and lies from proven frauds making up a significant proportion of denial.

Picking apart minor disagreements among legitimate researchers and building laughable conspiracy theories around clumsily edited interviews is about as much as denial has got.

HaHa! What consensus would that be? You clearly missed the link I posted which showed 500 climate scientists sent a letter to the UN's IPCC protesting their conclusion on global warming.

[JP226]

I have to say you don't post in good faith. Its a shame as the subject is interesting and it doesn't need nonsense posts like yours stinking it up.


Irrelevant and asinine comment: are you trolling or do you think Nazi pseudoscience is a legitimate aspect of this discussion?

The "climategate" nonsense is based on low tier fakes. There's a consensus about climate change in the scientific community, based around data. Denial comes from a tiny sector of privately funded researchers and is overwhelmingly nonsensical. There's also outright propaganda and lies from proven frauds making up a significant proportion of denial.

Picking apart minor disagreements among legitimate researchers and building laughable conspiracy theories around clumsily edited interviews is about as much as denial has got.

The priests couldn’t possibly be wrong this next time. Where was the latest climate meeting for the UN? Monaco? It is a fringe science hijacked by money and special interests. Like any number of other industries on this planet. Unlike, say big pharma, these clowns have built a cult of personality around themselves and buy their own .

Just looked out my window, coral rocks still are above water.

[Genava]

HaHa! What consensus would that be? You clearly missed the link I posted which showed 500 climate scientists sent a letter to the UN's IPCC protesting their conclusion on global warming.

500 climate scientists?!? Lies, dishonesty, unintelligence and laziness again and again... From the list released there is less than 15 climate scientists, less than 30 that have any experience in atmospheric science, less than 100 that have any experience in Earth sciences. Most of them are engineers in electricity, architecture, nuclear industry, oil industry, in chemistry or business analysts, philosophical, CEO etc.

https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques...versienwa4.pdf
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

You can easily find hundreds of physicians against vaccines, it doesn't mean they are right or that there is still a real debate on the issue. This is the same for the good old "a hundred authors against Einstein": http://weeklysciencequiz.blogspot.co...-einstein.html

Should I question the consensus on plasma and magnetism physics simply because Robitaille says he does not agree with the huge majority of the physicists? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

Seriously, use your brain at some point. I told you there are lies in the contrarian side and you are clearly not able to contradict me. The simple fact you can find easily dozen and dozen of examples of very obvious lies and manipulations from a side that calls for a crusade against the scientific community should at least rise your awareness and your critical thinking, if you had one. Each time you are repeating a story of manipulation and faking of the data I see gross exaggeration, misunderstanding and lies. I responded multiple times to your accusations. You never tried to defend them. Who is the zealot? Who has a religious behavior?

[B. W.]

https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques...versienwa4.pdf

From your links^

That's a pretty impressive list, despite what you say. The big difference is they're not on the IPCC gravy train.

[Genava]

https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques...versienwa4.pdf

From your links^

That's a pretty impressive list, despite what you say. The big difference is they're not on the IPCC gravy train.

Do you at least admit you were wrong by saying 500 climate scientists? Most of the conservatives and weirdo-conspiracy blogs said "500 climate scientists" so you blindly repeated the headline without any proper thinking. Sheeply following the herd.

If only you were applying even 1% of skepticism against your own sources...

[Common Soldier]

You are jumping from A to Z and missing a few letters..

Have you ever work with electronic research hardware? I doubt it because then you would understand that basically ANY such device needs calibration to provide unified response. What is calibration? In your world that is manipulation with raw data. I have sad truth for you. You almost never use raw data anywhere in physics. Calibration (because every device has different response to different input), remove noise channels/stations (because those screw statistics). Get rid of extremes (obviously faulty measurements like +1000 degree )......all these steps are normal because you need data that make sense. Not garbage. Have you ever read about Higgs Boson? We threw from window liek 99,999999% of all data. Because it was not useful...Because we knew what we are doing. You don´t.

Such calibration could potentially lead to sources of error, if done incorrectly. The assumption is that if someone expects to get a certain fault, could they adjust the calibration until they got the results they expected? All the he data in the world world won't mean a thing if people don't trust your integrity.

Note, the errors in calibration and data doesn't have to be deliberate. If a person knew what results to expect, they might honestly adjust thr calibration until it gives the results they knew they should be getting. If you are doing a lab experiment, and everyone else is getting different results, there would be a great temptation. To adjust rhe calibration of your equipment until you got results everyone else got and you expected to get. If you got different results, you would likely shrug it off as bad calibration of your equipment. But that supposedly bad result might actually be right, you might have had a contaminated sample, and everyone else just adjusted their readings and equipment to get the expected results. It would take a brave sole to publish their results that went against everybody else's results, even if they were right. l

If you have systematic error and like hundrets of station are off for a few years, what do you do? You claimed you work with statistics yet you again fail at very simple test. Of course you work the data to your best knowledge and effort. And you provide all steps so all people after you can check it...

It you have taken lab classes, you know that if you get results different from everybody else, you are going to logically assune that somehow you made an error, and will Lily throw out those results and repeat the xperiment until you get the results everyone else did. I think only a few individuals would have the courage and honesty to give their results despite it not agreeing with everyone's else's result, especially if they would be accused of being shills for the oil company.

For science to function properly, contrary results to the prevailing wisdom have to be accepted. Not necessarily as accurate, but at least in good faith, and that is not the case in Climate Change. Any one who doubts climate change is branded a heretic and a "shill for the oil company". Non one is going to find or publish any data contradicting the Climate Change dogma, unless they want to commit career suicide and be branded as either totally incompetent or a flunkly of big oil and coal companies. So naturally, all the results confirm climate change, what else would expect?


Only in Climate Change is the mantra "The Science is Settled!" changed, all other areas it is understood the science is never settled. While I believe that the evidence does support the claims of Climate Change, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear cut or overwhelming that no reasonable person could be skeptical, which is what many Climate Change proponents claim. Calling all skeptics "shills for the oil companies" isn't going to convince them, nor will shouting out "the science is settled".

[Genava]

It you have taken lab classes, you know that if you get results different from everybody else, you are going to logically assune that somehow you made an error, and will Lily throw out those results and repeat the xperiment until you get the results everyone else did. I think only a few individuals would have the courage and honesty to give their results despite it not agreeing with everyone's else's result, especially if they would be accused of being shills for the oil company.

You have clearly no knowledge of the literature in climate science. There are numerous topic were they are disagreeing between each other. The same in Earth Science. They are simply not disagreeing about the basics in atmospheric physics because it is simply unintelligent to disagree in those topics. Do you see numerous scientists disagreeing with the very basics of evolution theory? No. Does it mean they are restrained to do so? No. Does it mean there is no debate about evolution theory? No, there is a debate, but on a very higher level and on subtle details, not about what most of the contrarian of evolution theory are claiming. This is the same situation about climate science.

Another lie and cliché from a zealot that naively accepted some exaggerated claims from B.W. blog article spamming. Honestly, try to stop your double standard. Everything in your view of science is built upon trial of intent. Scientists have a huge interest to disprove each others contrary to your claims.

Only in Climate Change is the mantra "The Science is Settled!" changed, all other areas it is understood the science is never settled.

Actually no scientist said that like this. Science is indeed never settled and Karl Popper explained why a scientific theory is generally impossible to really prove (from a very strict perspective) but scientific theories that are generally accepted are those passing the refutation process. But I admit sometimes experts summarize the things like they are settled, but this is an issue in ALL fields. This is generally due to the low level of knowledge of their audience (and of the media).

The actual theory for climate change and CO2 is a solid theory resisting to refutation. NASA explained is opinion about the consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/