While there seems to be a consensus in the scientific community about global warming, there seems to be some problem with the temperature data from the 1980s. To be specific, the raw data is missing and the remaining data is modified data. The exact quote is as follows:
This is obviously a serious problem. After all, it is rather critical to keep raw data. After all, anyone wishing to check on the conclusions drawn from the data would need to be able to examine that data. Having only “value added” data is not adequate. After all, this “value adding” changes the original data and might do so in ways that bias the data. Of course, without the original data it cannot be determined whether the “value adding” was legitimate or whether it involved changing the data to support a specific hypothesis (rather than drawing the hypothesis from the data).
Does this prove that global warming is a hoax? Not at all. The fact that some data is missing does not disprove the hypothesis. However, it does raise serious and reasonable questions about any findings that are based on the missing data and it also provides some rather high caliber ammunition to those who are critical of the global warming view.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Climategate, The Consequences (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- Climate change emails: plot or damp squib? (telegraph.co.uk)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
There is more than just missing data. In the hacked e-mails there is admission to falsifying data, creating data out of thin air, how to ‘get rid’ of data so it could not be obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, complaints to other scientists on how they were disappointed that temps were no longer rising, schemes for exclusiveness to their community of opinion on peer reviews and some admitting to get others fired for disagreeing with ‘Man Made Global Warming’. Unless they can sweep this Mastodon under the rug the liabilities for deception are staggering. I wonder how crow tastes as it gets colder.
Yes, that was a disaster. However, it is important to keep in mind that these misdeeds do not automatically invalidate the work of other scientists. Their misdeeds destroy their credibility but should not be taking as evidence against global warming claims in general.
Thinking about this, I cannot help but see the parallels between this situation and the deceptions used to “justify” the Iraq war. Being consistent, since I condemned the deceptions used by the Bush administration to push the war, I also condemn the deceptions of those involved in this scheme.
You are making me laugh Mike. Every prediction of doom and gllom by these so called scientists has fallen short. Temperatures, see levels and hurricane levels. When there is some real evidence, let me know. Meanwhile they are getting stinking rich while the real scientists that dissagree are not. Wake up and grab a sweater.
Well, I am less inclined to laugh. We should be rather serious about studying climate patterns. After all, weather has a huge impact on our civilization and it has been well argued that climate changes (natural or not) can break or damage civilizations.
It wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t going to effect everyday life catastrophically through economic and regulatory means. These fruads are not trying to educate. They are trying to force something upon us.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/
Remember Jim Hanson from NASA admitting to manipulating data twice?
Yes. People should have more faith in the truth. Of course, the natural tendency of people is to see what they believe rather than believing what they see.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6748292.html
Houston….we have a problem.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVM701&show_article=1
Why investigate the legitimacy of the scientific evidence? The scientists have not been correct, even closely on any of their predictions over the last 20 years.
Because that is how critical methodology works: you examine the evidence and reject or accept conclusions based on that (and the logic). If the scientists are wrong, then a proper examination of the evidence will expose this.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-1-200-handshake-event-copenhagen
I guess Al Gore is feeling some real heat. He is the high priest of fraud. There is no debate with this man. If I was making the gobs of cash this man is on his lies, debating would be the last thing on my mind.
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSDEB00309720091203
India says “Kiss my ass uless you have some of your tax payers’ money to hand out to us.”.
Everyone wants to get a slice of the pie.
“GET OOOOOUT of HEEEAAAH! WE ONLY HAV AH HUNDRED YEEEEAAAAHS!”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1232884/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-unveils-dramatic-climate-change-map-shows-flooded-San-Francisco-future.html
Seriously, how many times have we seen these predictions before. They keep moving the target timetables further and further out but are still never on pace with their predictions.
You keep believing and you and all the other fools can give Al Gore extra money voluntarily. I don’t want to because I’m not an idiot. WIIIILLLMAAAAAAA! Get me off this crazy thing!
“Yes, that was a disaster. However, it is important to keep in mind that these misdeeds do not automatically invalidate the work of other scientists.”
It doesn’t invalidate the work, just the evidence. It doesn’t seem to agree with what they are saying unless it is made up.
This scientist is from MIT. He is calling bullshit in a very nice way.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Just follow the money.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf
Oh, and Al Gore is worth about $100000000.00 now. I should get a Nobel prize for trying to save the world from this fleecing.
He knows how to use the green to make the green.
Mike,
What are the decptions you’re talking about in the initiation of the Iraq War?
So many eggs were put into this basket by scientists, they could not let man-made global warming fail.
Everything has been politicized to the point of madness.
Guarantee the same thing happens with evolution. I see the same exact mind-set from its defenders.
Academics is no different from any other aspect of life-it is political and often ruled by lies. I’m not at all shocked by this, having been in academics for a long time. I am, however, dismayed and appalled by this. Scientists, like philosophers, are supposed to respect the truth.
There is truth in philosophy?
Yes. Philosophers are the lovers of the vision of truth, at least for Socrates. Of course, not all who claim to be philosophers are…
Not shocked by this? You knew they were lying about Global Warming? I like how you just bring out the “Well everybody does it…” card when faced with this evidence. Is it really science if numbers must be manipulated and fabricated?
I’m not shocked because I expect people to let their ideological commitments override critical thinking/logic. However, people should keep that tendency in check-especially anyone who wants to be a scientist.
I’m not playing the common practice card, that is a fallacy. My points are:
1) I am not shocked when people violate the standards of good reasoning.
2) I am critical when people do so.
3) The fact that people do this does not justify the common practice.
This is the type of thing that infuriates me about the media:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html
Not one network news station covered this. When John Stewart scoops you on a story that hammers the Left’s agenda, you have a problem.
That is a major lapse on the part of the media folks. This is a significant story and has serious implications in science and politics.
Al gore says he can live his lavish lifestyle because he pays Carbon Offset Credits to his own company. Dispensation anyone? Man made global warming is a fraud. Proven time and time again but the lemmings keep believing. Even when their high priests have admitted the lies.
I like how you tip-toed around the issue with this soft article. The data wasn’t lost. It was thrown away so it could not be contradicted.
Yes, that seems likely. The honest scientists I know are data packrats-they keep their data and are well aware that they need it in case someone makes an inquiry into their findings. That climate data is critical and should have been saved. Also, how expensive is a self storage place? I mean, really. 🙂
NASA is now being sued by a researcher who demanded their records through freedom of info–but they have thus far refused:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/