Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    DAVID ROSE How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

    They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

    A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

    The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

    It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

    In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

    Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

    That is not the end of it. Taxpayers also face an additional hefty contribution to an annual £80 billion in ‘climate aid’ from advanced countries to the developing world. That is on top of our already gargantuan aid budget. Green levies and taxes already cost the average household more than £150 a year.

    The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

    It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.

    Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

    There can be no doubting the impact of this document. It sat prominently in the scientific briefings handed out to international negotiators, including EU and UK diplomats.

    An official report from the European Science Advisory Council stated that the paper had ‘refined the corrections in temperature records’ and shown the warming rate after 2000 was higher than for 1950-99.

    So, flawed as it was, the Pausebuster paper unquestionably helped persuade world leaders to sign an agreement that imposes massive emissions cuts on developed countries.

    No wonder, then, that our revelations were met with fury by green propagandists. Some claimed the MoS had published ‘fake news’. One scientist accused me of becoming the ‘David Irving of climate change denial’ – a reference to the infamous Holocaust denier.

    Yet perhaps more damaging is the claim from some in the green lobby that our disclosures are small beer. In fact, their importance cannot be overstated. They strike at the heart of climate science because they question the integrity of the global climate datasets on which pretty much everything else depends.

    The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues. And as he explained to the MoS, one key concern is the reliability of new data on sea temperatures issued in 2015 at the same time as the Pausebuster paper.



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...avid-Rose.html
    Socialism is the only economic system that requires billionaires to exist.
    https://i.redditmedia.com/P8UE8DAGeB...c1ef120404fdbd
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.

  2. #2
    There was already a thread made about this. It was laughed at just like this one is going to be laughed at.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #3
    The Lightbringer Cerilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,088
    How can we trust team Trump if they keep twisting the truth? How can we trust anyone?!!!1

  4. #4
    Deleted
    So what I get from this article is that:
    -the official paper said that the warming is going at a steady pace
    -the whistleblower said that is wrong, rather global warming has accelerated in the last 17 years

    So, it's even worse than thought?

  5. #5
    All that paper proves is that the daily mail does not understand the combination of data from different methods of measurement works.

    If you measure the height of all windows of a set buildings in relation to sea level to see if/how the building deforms due to external influences like temperatures and you know your reference point is probably a bit off but later you get a better method of determining its exact position how do you combine data sets before and after you aquired the new measurment method?

    Easy: You can transform all data points from one reference system in the other because you now know how much you were off. The relative position of all your data points among each other was accurate enough before, after all. (And if it was not there is no way to reduce that inaccuracy in hindsight.)
    Just add/detract the relevant number from the absolute cooridnates and you are done.
    But transform into the new reference system or into the old one? Both are equally good for use, because just doing the adjustment to get from one to the other is practically a non-issue. Every computer does it everytime it uses numbers. Twice even. And for internal comparison the adjustment doesn't change anything, anyway.

    Your group is convinced the new reference system is more better, so you should use that one, right?
    Well... No. Or more accurately, you should use it when making presentations to laymen, but if you get together with lots of different groups of scientists that know how this works and who are in fact working on the very same thing just with their own new ideas?
    Then you'd better transform your new data into the old reference system. Then everyone can readily compare their new data to yours and you can just discuss both issues seperately as you should:
    1th The new data you found, and 2nd the new reference point you propose.

    That is why it is only logical for all those scientists to present their data in an old(er) reference system they already know is overcome than in their own new one.
    Because everyone knows about the old one but they didn't yet have time to discuss all the new ones about to be proposed. Putting both together after discussing both parts seperately is trivial work. So trivial in fact that it would be wasted time to do it until all the data will be brought together on the next meeting.
    Until then they all know to just keep track of the relative adjustment.

    So, to summarise, what this article is doing is misrepresenting something that is good scientific practise as "twisting the truth" to their readers who do not understand the topic at hand enough to spot where they are misled.

    For those interested look up "systematic error" (or "obersvational error") and how to deal with it if you combine numerous sets of data.
    Note that systematic errors aren't mistakes.

    Edit: Please note that my use of "you" in this post is impersonal. It is not addressed at anyone in paricular.

  6. #6
    I am Murloc! unfilteredJW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Seagrove Beach, FL
    Posts
    5,685
    I'll never understand the need to die on this hill.
    Wall of LOLs
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulla View Post
    Yeah I know. It'll take another 2 years + to knock Rozz and Flarelane down to size as Endus eventually was. Not worth the effort. My lack of posting here recently has been sort of 2-fold. One is because it's extremely boring watching the crazies come to the inevitable conclusion that they've failed. TDS seems to be an awfully persistent disease. Two is because I'm saving my infraction points to unleash unholy Hell when Trump wins re-election.

  7. #7
    You're never going to get 100% of scientists to agree to anything, 98% off all climate scientists is as good as it gets.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  8. #8
    David Rose was always a bit dodgy to begin with

    Since the Iraq debacle, Rose has latterly been writing articles attacking climate science for the Daily Mail. He has distinguished himself by the same uncritical reliance on dodgy sources that caused his catastrophic mistakes about Iraq.
    But now he has published his longest list of errors yet, in an article in the Mail on Sunday. Every one of them would have been easy to check and disprove, had he been inclined to do so. But the Mail pays well for this crap...


    *sigh*

  9. #9
    Deleted
    Sigh.

    /10chars

  10. #10
    I'll never understand the Right's ability to completely ignore any and all science but believe in every conspiracy theory with no evidence. Truly some of the dumbest people this world has to offer.

  11. #11
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    You're never going to get 100% of scientists to agree to anything, 98% off all climate scientists is as good as it gets.
    There was a time when 100% of the "scientists" agreed that the world was flat and the center of the universe.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Deruyter View Post
    There was a time when 100% of the "scientists" agreed that the world was flat and the center of the universe.
    They weren't "scientists."
    And the whole "world flat" meme was thrown out as early Egypt navigators knew back several thousand years ago. (Yes, even that slaver Columbus knew he wasn't going to fall off some edge of the world.)

  13. #13
    The guy that wrote this article needs to go back to school. He missed a few points.

  14. #14
    The Insane Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    18,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Deruyter View Post
    There was a time when 100% of the "scientists" agreed that the world was flat and the center of the universe.
    100% of no-one ever believed the earth was flat. If everyone agreed, The Church wouldn't have needed to aggressively persecute anyone.

    Your anecdotal bullshit is false to begin with. Just because the ignoramus in power at the time denied the Earth was round doesn't mean that it isn't true.
    Much like how the ignoramus in power right now denying climate change doesn't make it not exist.

    Try again.

  15. #15
    Legendary! MasterHamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Land of the mighty moose, polar bears and fika.
    Posts
    6,146
    Also, did you know there's a study that shows vaccines causes autism?
    /s
    Stop designing WoW like every content patch is it's own little expansion.

  16. #16
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    You're never going to get 100% of scientists to agree to anything, 98% off all climate scientists is as good as it gets.
    It's not about scientists agreeing, it's about using unverified data to reach conclusions which then play a big part in other decisions. Also, take a look at where the 97% number comes from, it's more or less lies(not to say that global warming isn't happening, just don't use that number as if fact).

  17. #17
    The thing with science is that you don't have to trust it.
    Since they present the methods they use, you can go and verify it yourself.

  18. #18
    When there are 10000 red marbles in a bowl, and 5 green marbles.

    You don't call it a bowl of green marbles.

    Be rational. Don't lose your marbles.

    Not everyone exposed to the new Corona Virus(SARS-CoV-2) will catch it, not everyone who catches it will develop the disease (COVID-19), not everyone who develops the disease will get sick, a small percentage of those who get sick will be very ill, and a small percentage of those who get very ill will die.

    Don't panic.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Deruyter View Post
    There was a time when 100% of the "scientists" agreed that the world was flat and the center of the universe.
    You mean, before the ancient Greeks demonstrated the earth wasn't flat? I didn't realize there were even any scientists then (the word "scientist" was invented in the 19th century).
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    WoW is like 99% bear ass collection simulator -- D-Rock

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/12/02/3C7E6BCE00000578-0-image-a-36_1486865499765.jpg[IMG]

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...avid-Rose.html
    I'm not surprised you're a dailymail reader.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •