As I have been saying since climategate began, very few people have access to all of the data necessary to make these conclusions. They rely on other scientists work and build on that to get their own theories and conclusions. Now we know that some of the data they were using was faked and some of it was massaged and ALL of the raw data is and has been gone for some time.
So are ALL of these climate scientists lying? Is there a huge conspiracy? Maybe, but I think my explanation is more likely. And then this morning I read this:
To me, the worry is the subtler kind of bias that we indisputably know has led to scientific errors in the past.
16 comments:
"ALL of the raw data is and has been gone for some time."
Really? Your link doesn't say that, in fact no one says that because it is not true. East Anglia lost a small part of one data set, and even in that case the original raw data is still available at the NOAA. Stop making stuff up.
I must give you credit though for posting a link that is less crazy than some of the others. The author recognizes that GW is not a hoax but says that there may be a "subtle bias" among climatologists to support the consensus. This does happen in science in all fields, scientists are human, and science is never pristine. Of course this pre-supposes that there is a consensus on GW, something which you have denied for years. You can't have it both ways.
actually, they admitted that they destroyed a lot of the raw data.
the argument is and was that it couldn't be used in the raw form anyway.
As I've been saying all along, CRU gets the raw data and they "standardize" it. Basically they translate it into the language that everyone understands but even if investigate the "harryreadme" emails you know that the translation process is fraught with pit falls. If the person in charge of tranlating or standardizing is off by only a tiny margin from a thousand years ago that would extrapolate out to a HOCKEY STICK by now!
Which is what actually happened with the hockey stick of course and thats why they were forced to revise it again and again and again.....
Now you can believe, like this author, that it was an innocent mistake. I do not believe that.
However there can be no argument that a few scientists can skew the whole picture. CRU is the organization that standardized everything from everyone. Every peer reviewed paper in the last 10 plus years used their #'s as a starting point. They are the "rosetta stone" for climate data and the top dog at CRU has been caught in a very compromising position with these emails and has been forced to resign.
In other words, a "subtle bias" extrapolated out to tens of thousands of data sets and thousands of scientists with their own potential bias is a recipe for complete bullshit.
It's like a giant game of telephone. The message in the beginning rarely resembles the message at the end.
I'll bet some really smart and evil guy is sitting in a cabin in northern Canada laughing at all the idiots arguing about this global warming thing. I know I am.
You're sitting in a cabin in Canada laughing about this?
strange brew man.
Oh yea, hozer.
Take off.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca
"The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned."
Like th polar ice caps I guess the oceans didn't get the memo on the "game" being over. Unfortunately for us all, it's not a game.
Dude, you are a jackass. A phony one at that. All you do is regurgitate articles. You offer nothing from your own train of thought. What a maroon. We should just silence you from this blog.
You have to understand that Gary is a troll. He doesnt believe the shit he spews. No one is that stupid.
You're stupid (don't know how else to respond to that). Yes I am not persuaded by a handful of Exxon-paid scientists who never seem to do any actual scientific work, in favor of thousands of scientists who have made a very strong case for AGW. I do not believe in your hoax/conspiracy theory, and as for
"subtle bias" it is always a factor in science but cannot affect acid levels in the oceans, or shrinking ice caps, both of which have been measured.
You buy the LaRouche article and Lord Monckton (although he's not a scientist) but dismiss all the actual scientists and studies. That's stupid but you are impervious to fact.
FactCheck.org on "Climate Gate":
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Sorry, game over, cased closed. Ha ha ha ha ha
Sorry, just mimicking you.
getlive, banning gary from The Aurora would be like banning legitimate scientists from the peer review process. It would mean that we were afraid of what he has to say.
kind of like i'm banned from daily kos and a few other liberal blogs.
they only want an echo chamber, they're afraid of debate.
Besides which I may be the only reader you have left.
"subtle bias" is NOT a factor in science. It is a factor in politics. That's why all of this is a bunch of bullshit. Politicians are involved.
gary doesn't debate. He doesn't know how to or better yet has no foundation for any of his points. Actually, now that I think of it, we should keep him. He a great punching bag!!!!!!! ahahaha
Post a Comment