As most sane people should know by now most of the background statistics in climate "science" has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening:
Here's a great recent youtube clip that shows the basics of how these climate scammers work:
Breitbart is a really good science site... Impeccable, so you'll get no argument around here...
You do realize Breitbart is relaying the info and not coming up with it, right? It fit their narrative so they ran it, they didn't just make it up.
oi, srly wrote:
Breitbart is a really good science site... Impeccable, so you'll get no argument around here...
Exactly. News is only true if CNN reports it, because of their strict and unwavering adherence to journalistic integrity and seeking of the truth, wherever it may lead.
Getting science news from Brietbart is like getting health advice from McDonald's. Keep trying, though.
I'm not going to wade into the science here because it's beyond my knowledge.
However, a quick scan of the report shows that Breitbart misinterpreted the headline.
For example, the report acknowledges that adjusting GAST is necessary:
"The adjustment of raw surface temperature data is clearly necessary to overcome numerous challenges."
"All of these challenges notwithstanding, calculation of GAST requires
that, after the raw data are collected, some adjustments clearly must
be made"
The report concludes that these adjustments systematically made warming appear worse.
Even if we accept all these analyses at face value, this is a far cry from "recent global warming is fabricated." Rather, it's a claim that statistical adjustments made get the answer wrong, and tend to do so in one direction.
That doesn't mean fabrication, which implies dishonestly on the behalf of the climate science researchers. Anyone who has worked with data knows you often have to make these types of decisions, and you typically do so by following other practices in the field. It's very possible that standard practice is wrong and a lot of people get the wrong answers. This can happen, and frequently does, without any "fabrication" or even poor reasoning. Science corrects itself and tries to get better answers over time.
In any event, I'd wait for a rebuttal before you go and conclude that recent conclusions about "hottest ever" are wrong.
Of the three authors:
One is an economist with a background in engineering, not a climate scientist, who runs a consulting organization.
One is a former weather channel meteorologist who works for Cato
One is a meterology PhD not actively working for a research science group, but a foundation of climate change skeptics funded by Exxon Mobile
All have been active among the small number of climate change skeptics.
This is not a peer-reviewed published article (co-signing authors are not the same as peer reviews). It's not even sponsored by any institutions. It's a word document uploaded to a WordPress blog.
I'm not going to outright say it's wrong, but consider its source and the fact that it hasn't gone through any standard scientific peer review. It's not even reviewed to the level of a technical report/working paper.
lester burnham the third wrote:
...
Science corrects itself and tries to get better answers over time.
...
But Global Warming isn't science, which is why these data distortions never get corrected, and why the answers don't get better over time.
Further, Breitbart calls it a "peer reviewed" study, but it hasn't been published in any science journal anywhere that I can find. Any libertarian think tank (Cato Institute in this case) can make a pdf and throw it up on wordpress. That doesn't make it a peer reviewed study.
Even further, adjusted data (which they agree is necessary in some cases as mentioned above) that results in a "more steep" upward trend ignores the fact that the data still shows an upward trend even before adjustment. Either way it's going up.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
Further, Breitbart calls it a "peer reviewed" study, but it hasn't been published in any science journal anywhere that I can find.
...
The IPCC Climate Gate scandal proved that Global Warmists are conspiring to keep any papers critical of Global Warming from passing peer review, so that process has been corrupted and has become a meaningless exercise.
It aint science.
DiscoGary wrote:
David S. Pumpkins wrote:Further, Breitbart calls it a "peer reviewed" study, but it hasn't been published in any science journal anywhere that I can find.
...
The IPCC Climate Gate scandal proved that Global Warmists are conspiring to keep any papers critical of Global Warming from passing peer review, so that process has been corrupted and has become a meaningless exercise.
It aint science.
You're working real hard here Mr. Disco, but you seem like a crazy person the more you write
dont like to read dont breed wrote:
Of the three authors:
One is an economist with a background in engineering, not a climate scientist, who runs a consulting organization.
One is a former weather channel meteorologist who works for Cato
One is a meterology PhD not actively working for a research science group, but a foundation of climate change skeptics funded by Exxon Mobile
All have been active among the small number of climate change skeptics.
This is not a peer-reviewed published article (co-signing authors are not the same as peer reviews). It's not even sponsored by any institutions. It's a word document uploaded to a WordPress blog.
I'm not going to outright say it's wrong, but consider its source and the fact that it hasn't gone through any standard scientific peer review. It's not even reviewed to the level of a technical report/working paper.
Good job, thanks
DiscoGary wrote:
David S. Pumpkins wrote:Further, Breitbart calls it a "peer reviewed" study, but it hasn't been published in any science journal anywhere that I can find.
...
The IPCC Climate Gate scandal proved that Global Warmists are conspiring to keep any papers critical of Global Warming from passing peer review, so that process has been corrupted and has become a meaningless exercise.
It aint science.
CORRECT!
So you may go ahead claim your self published study "peer reviewed" paper to make it more credible since passing peer review process is a meaningless exercise ;-}
I worked at a climate change research institute for many years with and for people who work on IPCC reports. You can find some of their names littered about so-called Climate Gate emails.
I really do wish I could report on some fun conspiring going on behind the scenes. It doesn't exist. These are serious, caring people doing the best work they can.
If papers critical of global warming science don't pass peer reviews, it's because the papers are not good and/or the authors are not trying very hard.
This is a far more plausible explanation than some cabal of scientists repressing the truth so they can get that sweet global warming funding.
In any event, if you know what you were talking about, you'd realize that "paper critical of global warming" is so broad as to be almost meaningless.
Another article meant to resonate in an alt-right echo chamber - preying on the self-righteous and the gullible. Life is so much better if you believe that most people, scientists included, are not cons, but conscientious beings who become good at their jobs.
DiscoGary wrote:
David S. Pumpkins wrote:Further, Breitbart calls it a "peer reviewed" study, but it hasn't been published in any science journal anywhere that I can find.
...
The IPCC Climate Gate scandal proved that Global Warmists are conspiring to keep any papers critical of Global Warming from passing peer review, so that process has been corrupted and has become a meaningless exercise.
It aint science.
So why lie and claim it is peer-reviewed?
Righty Lefty wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:The IPCC Climate Gate scandal proved that Global Warmists are conspiring to keep any papers critical of Global Warming from passing peer review, so that process has been corrupted and has become a meaningless exercise.
It aint science.
You're working real hard here Mr. Disco, but you seem like a crazy person the more you write
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
- Phil Jones to Michael Mann
I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
...
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
- Mann to Jones
It's all corruption and lies. Check it out yourself. There's a lot more there.
To a world full of ignorant lunatics an educated sane person will seem crazy.
DiscoGary wrote:
Righty Lefty wrote:You're working real hard here Mr. Disco, but you seem like a crazy person the more you write
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
- Phil Jones to Michael Mann
I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
...
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
- Mann to Jones
It's all corruption and lies. Check it out yourself. There's a lot more there.
To a world full of ignorant lunatics an educated sane person will seem crazy.
What part of "you seem more like a crazy person the more you write" didn't you get?
DiscoGary wrote:
Righty Lefty wrote:You're working real hard here Mr. Disco, but you seem like a crazy person the more you write
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
- Phil Jones to Michael Mann
I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
...
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
- Mann to Jones
It's all corruption and lies. Check it out yourself. There's a lot more there.
To a world full of ignorant lunatics an educated sane person will seem crazy.
Yup, DiscoGary, the epitome of sanity!
lackey smacky wrote:
I worked at a climate change research institute for many years with and for people who work on IPCC reports. You can find some of their names littered about so-called Climate Gate emails.
I really do wish I could report on some fun conspiring going on behind the scenes. It doesn't exist. These are serious, caring people doing the best work they can.
If papers critical of global warming science don't pass peer reviews, it's because the papers are not good and/or the authors are not trying very hard.
This is a far more plausible explanation than some cabal of scientists repressing the truth so they can get that sweet global warming funding.
In any event, if you know what you were talking about, you'd realize that "paper critical of global warming" is so broad as to be almost meaningless.
How much "conspiring behind the scenes" do you want me to publish? It takes a while to paste and format it. We see them admitting that they don't know why temperatures are remaining flat, deliberately choosing data to get the results they wanted.
It's all corruption and lies, and yes, to get the grant money. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about since you didn't seem to know what was going on at the IPCC.