• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paratus said:
As eskimospy said this is a fisihing expedition.

With enough e-mails he'll find someone who says something like, "I tweaked the data because it was showing a lower temperature than predicted" followed by a large amount of technical jargon why that was the correct calibration to make.

Lamar with then go, "AH HA! There was TWEAKING!!!!1111 I found TWEAKING!!!!!!! I knew my gut was right all along."

Then the folks, like those in this thread, will lap it up.

BTW this is why I can't vote for most conservatives. Leaders should be making decisions with the best knowledge of reality as one of the inputs to making decisions. "Leaders" like Rep Smith want to bury any inconvenient knowledge. I can't respect, or vote for someone like that.
Click to expand...

The realistic defense to that is to show all corrections which would include instances of adjustments in both directions as these 'errors' should show a normal distribution curve. If the distribution is skewed then IMHO that's a legitimate question for Congress to raise.
 
Greenman said:
. Al Gore made it into a dog and pony show for personal profit, that hurt the science, that gave the entire concept the stench of another public fleecing, and instilled distrust in a lot of people.
Click to expand...

How so? I see in your other post how much you dislike him but Just because you dint like his presentation does not make it a dog and pony show.

And no it didn't hurt science its folks who already hated Al gore (like you), the same folks who deny global warming brought more distrust to the same people.
 
glenn1 said:
The realistic defense to that is to show all corrections which would include instances of adjustments in both directions as these 'errors' should show a normal distribution curve. If the distribution is skewed then IMHO that's a legitimate question for Congress to raise.
Click to expand...
Everything required to understand what went into the paper, data and methodology, was already released.

If there was something wrong with either, it would be easy to point it out. Since he hasn't found anything it's time for a fishing expedition.
 
Paratus said:
Everything required to understand what went into the paper, data and methodology, was already released.

If there was something wrong with either, it would be easy to point it out. Since he hasn't found anything it's time for a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it would be nice if you likewise acknowledged the fact that Congress has the right to go on fishing expeditions and its a bipartisan hobby of that body.
 
unokitty said:
Time to stop eating meat.

If you truly believe in climate change, you can't eat meat. Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite.

Uno
Click to expand...

I drive a truck and eat meat daily. That doesn't mean I delude myself into trying to refute scientists.
 
Paratus said:
As eskimospy said this is a fisihing expedition.

With enough e-mails he'll find someone who says something like, "I tweaked the data because it was showing a lower temperature than predicted" followed by a large amount of technical jargon why that was the correct calibration to make.

Lamar with then go, "AH HA! There was TWEAKING!!!!1111 I found TWEAKING!!!!!!! I knew my gut was right all along."

Then the folks, like those in this thread, will lap it up.

BTW this is why I can't vote for most conservatives. Leaders should be making decisions with the best knowledge of reality as one of the inputs to making decisions. "Leaders" like Rep Smith want to bury any inconvenient knowledge. I can't respect, or vote for someone like that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People lost their minds over "smoothing." Got to love when people that have no knowledge of mathematics or the scientific process try to refute a scientific article. Nearly everything in science requires simplifications and adjustments past the sophomore level.
 
glenn1 said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it would be nice if you likewise acknowledged the fact that Congress has the right to go on fishing expeditions and its a bipartisan hobby of that body.
Click to expand...

If that's what you are looking for, fine congress can go on fishing expeditions. Both parties.

I'd be equally disgusted by a democrat who used their supena powers to forcibly remain ignorant.
 
A few years ago a well funded hacking attack hacked into a climate scientists computer system and downloaded all there emails. They then went through them in order to piece together the most inflammatory report on the scientists they could. They released there cherry picked emails just before a major global meeting on climate and succeeded in killing off most of the recommendations.

What Rep. Smith is doing is exactly the same thing. Have the scientists fork over all there emails so they can cherry pick the ones that make the scientists look bad -- just before a major global climate meeting.

The Republican party -- at war with reason, without reason!


Brian
 
Paratus said:
I know!
There's problems from using different instruments and a calibrations over the years to measure temperatures.

There's errors from temperature readings around the poles due to how melting ice water and ice change the surrounding temperatures

There's heating changes due to the environment that have to be adjusted or things show up hotter or colder.

They've had to update their data like 6 times!

I understand the data isn't even real data. It's a calculated value to "try and remove" some of the inherent uncertainties!

It amazing anyone trusts that data.




OOPS! The above was for the satellite lower troposphere data and not the ground temperature stations. My bad. Sorry 🙁

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

Luckily both the satellite and ground stations records are published with the calibrations and uncertainties so those who understand the science can use them appropriately.
Click to expand...
Agree...UAH 6.0 data rocks and is an incredibly accurate temperature record. 🙂 Too bad the data only goes back to 1979.

Edit: And between you and me, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have an explanation for the divergence?
 
Last edited:
Thebobo said:
How so? I see in your other post how much you dislike him but Just because you dint like his presentation does not make it a dog and pony show.

And no it didn't hurt science its folks who already hated Al gore (like you), the same folks who deny global warming brought more distrust to the same people.
Click to expand...

Al Gore was set up to reap huge profits from cap and trade. It was all about the money.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/
 
Paratus said:
So because Al Gore was going to make money on it global warming isn't real?

Is Al Gore.............a wizard?!
Click to expand...

I never suggested anything of the sort, you're simply being obtuse in an attempt to make me appear foolish.

My point was, and is, that Al Gore became the main proponent of global warming for profit, and in so doing gave it the appearance of a scam.
I spouse it's possible he was going to use the fortune he stood to make from cap and trade to fund research and education, but I doubt it.
 
Greenman said:
I never suggested anything of the sort, you're simply being obtuse in an attempt to make me appear foolish.

My point was, and is, that Al Gore became the main proponent of global warming for profit, and in so doing gave it the appearance of a scam.
I spouse it's possible he was going to use the fortune he stood to make from cap and trade to fund research and education, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Why is al gore relevant to this?
 
Paratus said:
So because Al Gore was going to make money on it global warming isn't real?

Is Al Gore.............a wizard?!
Click to expand...

They are able to personify the movement into one individual that they can then attack and refute the larger issue. Simple minded tactic, but it obviously works on people. Never mind Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, and others who are largely funded by energy companies are the primary distributors of bogus science and the "message of the year" that "debunks" global warming that the deniers parrot.

Now its about moving the target around. First global warming is a myth, then it is happening but not by humans, then it may be happening but its good for us. If you can't see they obfuscation by now, then you never will.
 
eskimospy said:
Why is al gore relevant to this?
Click to expand...

You're going to have to read the entire thread, I have a cold and don't feel like reiterating the entire discussion.
Suffice to say that one sentence I wrote was taken out of context and made into a central issue, entirely missing the point of the statement.
 
Subyman said:
They are able to personify the movement into one individual that they can then attack and refute the larger issue. Simple minded tactic, but it obviously works on people. Never mind Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, and others who are largely funded by energy companies are the primary distributors of bogus science and the "message of the year" that "debunks" global warming that the deniers parrot.

Now its about moving the target around. First global warming is a myth, then it is happening but not by humans, then it may be happening but its good for us. If you can't see they obfuscation by now, then you never will.
Click to expand...

You're repudiating a position that was never taken. In fact, you're doing precisely what you claim the "deniers" are doing. You really need to read the entire thread before going of on a tangent.
 
Greenman said:
My point was, and is, that Al Gore became the main proponent of global warming for profit, and in so doing gave it the appearance of a scam.

I spouse it's possible he was going to use the fortune he stood to make from cap and trade to fund research and education, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The appearance of him doing lectures and movie for profit only is for folks who already hated him. Al Gore has been doing environmental activism since the late 80s, I do understand the division he caused by him being the messenger but haters are going to hate no matter what.
 
You have done something wrong! Now let me have all your stuff to find something wrong!!

To perform an Investigation, there should be the requirement of reasonable suspicion that a wrong has occurred. Simply insisting something is amiss and demanding compliance with an investigation is unacceptable, regardless of the legal powers granted to certain persons. Without a certain minimum criteria required for an Investigation to occur, the power to begin one is fraught with being abused. Abuse of power is Corruption of the system and should not be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
Do you have an explanation for the divergence?
Click to expand...

Paratus says its because they measure different things. That because the Satellite Temp literally is not a measurement of Surface Temp and so you must expect them to be... different.

What throws me off is they appear to match nicely until the past decade. Until the pause. We believe that's due to fraud on the Surface Station record, as it has historically been controlled by political activists. He... I don't know.

Paratus, why is it they diverge only recently?
Both sets used to agree quite nicely on the warming.
 
Thebobo said:
The appearance of him doing lectures and movie for profit only is for folks who already hated him. Al Gore has been doing environmental activism since the late 80s, I do understand the division he caused by him being the messenger but haters are going to hate no matter what.
Click to expand...

There was no "appearance". Al Gore was pushing cap and trade, he was positioned to reap huge profits from it. In other words, he had a vested interest in promoting the global warming issue. I don't know what his motivation was, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that profits were a part of it.
You can try to paint it as Al Gore the great humanitarian, but his actions are those of Al Gore, the greedy business man. My entire point is that the message would have been better received if it had come from someone that didn't stand to make vast sums of money from it.
At the same time that he was flying around in his private jet pushing cap and trade as the answer to climate change, he also had the gall to claim he was "carbon neutral", an unmitigated crock of shit by any measure.
 
Greenman said:
There was no "appearance". Al Gore was pushing cap and trade, he was positioned to reap huge profits from it. In other words, he had a vested interest in promoting the global warming issue. I don't know what his motivation was, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that profits were a part of it.
You can try to paint it as Al Gore the great humanitarian, but his actions are those of Al Gore, the greedy business man. My entire point is that the message would have been better received if it had come from someone that didn't stand to make vast sums of money from it.
At the same time that he was flying around in his private jet pushing cap and trade as the answer to climate change, he also had the gall to claim he was "carbon neutral", an unmitigated crock of shit by any measure.
Click to expand...

Glad your cold went away: thank science for whatever miracle cure you found.
 
I was never a fan of the cap and trade deal but I strongly believe we humans are causing problems with the climate. That Gore and others have found a way to profit from this is not good, but it does not change the fact that we humans are consuming enormous quantities of energy and producing enormous quantities of pollution.

What the right is doing is what they always do ... look for a bogeyman they can accuse of something then stand well back with the idea that merely dirtying someone connected with climate advocacy will end any action to stop/slow it.

The right doesn't do policy they let the left set the agenda then automatically go the other way. If the left had been denying climate change the right would have claimed the sky was falling -- automatically!


Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top