Paper refuting global-warming halt is "scientific misconduct" claims Rep. Smith

[mect]

The thing that bothers me most is that this is nothing but a witch hunt. I don't care if you are skeptical of climate change or not, once you start attacking the scientists from a political position, you've crossed the line. There are mechanisms in place to protect against academic misconduct. Are those mechanisms defeated at times? Sure. And there are studies to identify those times. But right now everything indicates this isn't one of those times. There is nothing to indicate academic misconduct here. In fact, they went through an even more rigorous vetting process in this case. The only reason this rep is after the scientists involved is because he doesn't like the data. If you start attacking scientists because you don't like their data, you are starting down an extremely dangerous road. This bastard has absolutely no business being on a high school science fair committee, let alone one at the national level. Get him out.

 

[Jaskalas]

The thing that bothers me most is that this is nothing but a witch hunt. I don't care if you are skeptical of climate change or not, once you start attacking the scientists from a political position, you've crossed the line.

So instead of demanding emails, Congress should first submit a challenge to their data. If it can be reproduced with sound results you back off. If Climate science fails... then you go looking deeper for corruption.

 

[OverVolt]

The temperature data set seems to be garbage IMO no matter how its massaged. The statistical error is way too great, IMO to make anything meaningful out of the data. Hence all the fighting.

There is no way temperature thermometers all across the globe collecting data under all different sorts of unstandardized conditions can produce a statistically meaningful result. The error bars are where I feel the devil is in the details. I would imagine the climate models are also outside their error bars when they had to be corrected. It should tell you all this data is garbage. Apparently climate scientists reject the satellite data, so that is garbage too. Its all garbage.

Energy balance is definitely something that can be studied but the earth is such a complex system they don't know how it'll react. The warmth going into the ocean surprised them.

 

[fskimospy]

The temperature data set seems to be garbage IMO no matter how its massaged. The statistical error is way too great, IMO to make anything meaningful out of the data. Hence all the fighting.

There is no way temperature thermometers all across the globe collecting data under all different sorts of unstandardized conditions can produce a statistically meaningful result. The error bars are where I feel the devil is in the details. I would imagine the climate models are also outside their error bars when they had to be corrected. It should tell you all this data is garbage. Apparently climate scientists reject the satellite data, so that is garbage too. Its all garbage.

Energy balance is definitely something that can be studied but the earth is such a complex system they don't know how it'll react. The warmth going into the ocean surprised them.

Can you explain why you've come to such a dramatically different conclusion about the temperature record than thousands of scientists from across the world?

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you explain why you've come to such a dramatically different conclusion about the temperature record than thousands of scientists from across the world?

First, he's not deluding himself with a stupid notion that there are thousands of climate scientists in a position of authority on the matter. Because there is not.

Second, it's common sense that the majority work on a specific subset of data or information and are never actually involved in the "big picture". To definitively say that man is majorly responsible for observed changes. Probably why only 0.5% of papers said as much.

Third, maybe people are aware that the head of GISS has historically been a political activist.

 

[bshole]

Can you explain why you've come to such a dramatically different conclusion about the temperature record than thousands of scientists from across the world?

Can you explain why you were unable to come up with a thoughtful counter to his post and went straight to an argument from authority?

 

[fskimospy]

First, he's not deluding himself with a stupid notion that there are thousands of climate scientists in a position of authority on the matter. Because there is not.

Second, it's common sense that the majority work on a specific subset of data or information and are never actually involved in the "big picture". To definitively say that man is majorly responsible for observed changes. Probably why only 0.5% of papers said as much.

Third, maybe people are aware that the head of GISS has historically been a political activist.

Why are you continuing to parrot the '0.5%' nonsense? That has been debunked repeatedly. The standard used there is so illogical as to almost certainly be purposeful deception. As I have mentioned previously, by that standard a vanishingly small percentage of physics papers support the existence of gravity. You are being duped by unscrupulous climate deniers.

Regardless of the number there are very large numbers of scientists in a position to make a judgment on the validity of temperature data that clearly have come to a dramatically different conclusion than our good friend Overvolt. Clearly he believes he has some sort of superior knowledge or expertise to these people who have dedicated their lives to researching it and so I'm curious as to what that is. My guess is that it is absolutely nothing.

As to your allusions to yet another conspiracy, I don't think that sort of nonsense deserves a rebuttal.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you explain why you were unable to come up with a thoughtful counter to his post and went straight to an argument from authority?

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. He made a bunch of statements for which he supplied no facts.

I mean, duh.

 

[bshole]

Why are you continuing to parrot the '0.5%' nonsense? That has been debunked repeatedly. The standard used there is so illogical as to almost certainly be purposeful deception. As I have mentioned previously, by that standard a vanishingly small percentage of physics papers support the existence of gravity. You are being duped by unscrupulous climate deniers.

Regardless of the number there are very large numbers of scientists in a position to make a judgment on the validity of temperature data that clearly have come to a dramatically different conclusion than our good friend Overvolt. Clearly he believes he has some sort of superior knowledge or expertise to these people who have dedicated their lives to researching it and so I'm curious as to what that is. My guess is that it is absolutely nothing.

As to your allusions to yet another conspiracy, I don't think that sort of nonsense deserves a rebuttal.

More arguments from authority. If you are just going to mail it in, why even bother?

Perhaps a class in debate/logic would be useful for you.

 

[fskimospy]

More arguments from authority. If you are just going to mail it in, why even bother?

Perhaps a class in debate/logic would be useful for you.

You don't understand what an argument from authority is. I am not saying my position is right simply because experts believe it, I am asking explicitly for the reasons why he believes they are wrong.

Sign yourself up for that logic class, and a reading class while you're at it, dumbass.

 

[Greenman]

Can you explain why you've come to such a dramatically different conclusion about the temperature record than thousands of scientists from across the world?

Climbing on the band wagon is safe, the few who question the information they are handed are quickly labeled as deniers, and their career path is threatened. Forced conformity is the hallmark of bad science.

 

[fskimospy]

Climbing on the band wagon is safe, the few who question the information they are handed are quickly labeled as deniers, and their career path is threatened. Forced conformity is the hallmark of bad science.

So you assert a worldwide conspiracy in climate science.

That seems reasonable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, I'm saying you are shifting between sources when convenient and those sources not only disagree with each other, but with other statements you have made. That indicates incompetent analysis and/or a search for websites that tell you what you want to hear.

You complained that the original chart was "messy", so I provided one that was cleaner. One averages 4 surface temperature methodologies and the other two. I don't believe the later graph was as recent as the first as well. If you have issues with the data graphed, please elaborate as to exactly why the temperature plots are wrong. Also, I quoted Wikipedia regarding the 1.2 factor...if you have issues with the accuracy of their information, I suggest that you take it up with them directly. I must admit that I quite surprised at your expertise in this particular area, so much so that you can so easily identify data problems, incompetent analysis and technical mistakes by Wikipedia. You're a hoot.

 

[fskimospy]

You complained that the original chart was "messy", so I provided one that was cleaner. One averages 4 surface temperature methodologies and the other two. I don't believe the later graph was as recent as the first as well. If you have issues with the data graphed, please elaborate as to exactly why the temperature plots are wrong. Also, I quoted Wikipedia regarding the 1.2 factor...if you have issues with the accuracy of their information, I suggest that you take it up with them directly. I must admit that I quite surprised at your expertise in this particular area, so much so that you can so easily identify data problems, incompetent analysis and technical mistakes by Wikipedia. You're a hoot.

You are also a hoot, my good man. I've already said that the particulars of this lie outside my area of expertise. What I am good at doing however, is reading graphs and looking to see if what you say they are saying is accurate or not. It was not, as I already pointed out to you.

You made a claim that the current discrepancy is without parallel. I showed you how your own graph disproved that. You then provided a second graph that was dramatically different than your first graph, one that conflicted with another data point you brought up from Wikipedia.

All I'm doing is measuring your statements against the information you provide, and you're failing at that simple test miserably. I'm calling YOU incompetent, not Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that as usual you're just searching for things that tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are also a hoot, my good man. I've already said that the particulars of this lie outside my area of expertise. What I am good at doing however, is reading graphs and looking to see if what you say they are saying is accurate or not. It was not, as I already pointed out to you.

You made a claim that the current discrepancy is without parallel. I showed you how your own graph disproved that. You then provided a second graph that was dramatically different than your first graph, one that conflicted with another data point you brought up from Wikipedia.

All I'm doing is measuring your statements against the information you provide, and you're failing at that simple test miserably. I'm calling YOU incompetent, not Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that as usual you're just searching for things that tell you what you want to hear.

Reasonable discussion with you is impossible. If you have data the shows no significant discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records since the sea bucket adjustments post-1998, now would be a good time to provide it. Otherwise, I leave you to troll another victim with your nonsense.

 

[fskimospy]

Reasonable discussion with you is impossible. If you have data the shows no significant discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records since the sea bucket adjustments post-1998, now would be a good time to provide it. Otherwise, I leave you to troll another victim with your nonsense.

I'm sorry that you are so offended that someone looked at the evidence you provided and compared it to what you said. Life is hard sometimes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Forced conformity is the hallmark of bad science.

No, it really isn't, and your statement really shows how little you know about science. If your methods do not strictly conform to methodological naturalism, they cannot be called science. The "methods" of the deniers do not conform.

Do try to keep this in mind in the future.

 

[PokerGuy]

Reasonable discussion with you is impossible.

You should know by now, it's difficult to have sensible discussion with someone who believes himself to be the foremost expert on any and every subject ()

 

[PokerGuy]

It's about time someone took a closer look at NOAA and their activities. If they have nothing to hide, then there's no issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's about time someone took a closer look at NOAA and their activities. If they have nothing to hide, then there's no issue.

So you think it's appropriate to dig through researchers emails in order to play some sort of sick game of "gotcha". This rep isn't doing it to find out if someone is actually corrupted, but simply to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the scientists in question and pretend like their is some sort of conspiracy underway. I'm sure they'd dig through the e-mails and then cherry-pick something that makes the sender look bad. You can build quite a story when you take stuff out of context.

It's ridiculous when anti-biotech liberals use FOIA laws to obtain independent scientists', who have have spoken out in favor of GMOs, emails in order to find something to make a fake scandal and tarnish their public reputation and it is ridiculous when some asshat in Congress tries to do the same thing.

You'll be putting a real damper on independent scientific analysis of numerous issues by allowing a release of e-mails. And with numerous, advanced scientific issues facing this country, it's high-time we listen to the science and then decide how to act on it from a policy side instead of pretending the science doesn't exist.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

GISS went whole hog on the sea bucket adjustment, HADCRUT4 took a more modest adjustment, and the UAH satellite data is well...the satellite data...unaffected by the sea bucket adjustment. Here's an interesting comparison of just how this particular adjustment is influencing the data.

Here's another showing just how closely the satellite data tracks (UAH/RSS) compared to the recently adjusted GISS data.

 

[mect]

So instead of demanding emails, Congress should first submit a challenge to their data. If it can be reproduced with sound results you back off. If Climate science fails... then you go looking deeper for corruption.

No, instead of demanding emails Congress should listen to what the scientists are telling them rather than trying force out the results congress wants. Ignoring the data just because you don't like it only leads to places you don't want to go. I've done contract work measuring material properties for several semiconductor companies. Some accept the data regardless of if it is what they want to see or not. If they have concerns, their experts ask about specific protocols. Other companies accept the data only if it tells them what they want, but if it doesn't then they will accept data from less reliable techniques that tell them what they want. Then their product fails. Why does it fail? Because the materials never met the damn specs to start. And I told them that. Just ignoring data you don't agree with doesn't change it.

If members of congress thinks there's some big conspiracy out there and they want to reveal it, they should quit their jobs in government, go spend 5+ years getting doctorates in climate science, and then they will have the credentials to challenge the scientific consensus surrounding global warming. Then they'll have the background to accuse these researchers of academic misconduct based on how the paper reads. Until then, they can do their fucking job which is to draft appropriate legislation based on the information provided by those that have dedicated enough time and effort to know what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[OverVolt]

So was there a halt, or wasn't there a halt? Honest question .

 

[Jaskalas]

A visual guide to how they tracked before, VS diverging now.

 

[Paratus]

GISS went whole hog on the sea bucket adjustment, HADCRUT4 took a more modest adjustment, and the UAH satellite data is well...the satellite data...unaffected by the sea bucket adjustment. Here's an interesting comparison of just how this particular adjustment is influencing the data.

Here's another showing just how closely the satellite data tracks (UAH/RSS) compared to the recently adjusted GISS data.

So was there a halt, or wasn't there a halt? Honest question .

Maybe Doc can point out on these graphs where he sees the halt.

NASA, NOAA, Japan Meteorological Agency, et al say there isn't one. Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith says there is one.

However none of us will be able to convince you one way or the other because you believe no one is able to measure anything about the climate.