@
HoraceGreenley says
Read the comments. That data is faked.
Nope. Your whole "East Anglia" conspiracy theory doesn't hold up under examination. Ten years later, journalists from The Guardian and The Daily Mail went back and examined the whole thing.
“In fact, the email was an entirely innocent and appropriate conversation between scientists,” Mann states in this week’s BBC Four documentary, Climategate: Science of a Scandal. He and Jones were merely trying to find appropriate ways of illustrating a graph of global temperature changes.
This view was not shared by Sarah Palin: the former US vice-presidential candidate wrote a Washington Post op-ed article that claimed the emails “reveal that leading climate ‘experts’ … manipulated data to hide the decline in global temperatures”.
. . .
but his views were supported by many others, such as Mike Hanlon, former science editor of the Daily Mail. “Scratch and sniff as we did, there was no smoking gun, no line that would show that there had been a conspiracy to fabricate a great untruth,” he said later. Thus, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, the notion that Climategate represented “the worst scientific scandal of a generation” – as one UK newspaper had claimed – was found in the end to be unsupportable.
And now for the GOOD stuff!
Other powerful support was provided by physicists at University of California, Berkeley, who decided to test if deniers had been right to question Jones’s temperature charts. Led by Professor Richard Muller and backed by funds that included a $150,000 grant from noted climate-crisis denial supporters, the Charles Koch Foundation – the team re-analysed more than 1.6bn land temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s – and came to exactly the same conclusions as Jones: the fairly level temperatures that had continued through the past few centuries began to spike sharply a few decades ago as atmosphere carbon levels rose.
“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with warming values published previously,” said Muller. “This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”
The East Anglia emails show nothing wrong was done. “In fact, the email was an entirely innocent and appropriate conversation between scientists,” Mann states in this week’s BBC Four documentary,...
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned
@
HoraceGreenley People behaving badly and science lost a lot of credibility.
I agree that the East Anglia emails show scientists are people too. And when those people communicated privately and informally, they said things outsiders could misinterpret, like "use Mike's trick" which doesn't mean fake the data, it means correlate it with tree rings.
The journalists at the Guardian & Daily Mail looked long and hard at the East Anglia emails. Either those journalists joined the conspiracy, or they can be trusted when they say they found no wrongdoing, just informal personal communications that could be spun in a negative way.
Science is not as objective as most believe.
I've been part of the writing & publication of peer reviewed papers; I've also been a peer reviewer. Each individual publication is subject to question and doubt, but after a while they begin to pile up more and more evidence.
Science is a decentralized process. You could throw out everything done at East Anglia and barely make a dent in the work done on climate change. And that's where consensus comes in. Since I'm not trained to vet all the equations and assumptions climatologists use, I have to look to those others who can do so.
Thus I tend to accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society. Add in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists, and you start to get a pretty strong consensus. See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
@
HoraceGreenley I get it. I disagree.
Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion. But your original claim here,
the historical data that forms the basis of Climate Change models was faked
is dead. It doesn't hold up under inspection. The two 'climate gates' didn't uncover anything terrible despite your beliefs to the contrary, and, because science is so decentralized, climate science doesn't need East Anglia at all.
@
HoraceGreenley there's no global data set available during this time period.
Actually, there is plenty of data recorded. Just not by humans.
There are ice cores from glaciers on multiple continents, sea & lake sediment cores, and tree ring data. And they all correlate. Oops, don't forget peat! Here's a pretty picture:
For just a taste, here's an article identifying major volcanic events over the last 11,000 years. In upper portions of glaciers you can count the years by layers and correlate different glaciers by volcanic events. CO2 can be read from trapped ice bubbles.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JD032855For yucks, look up "eruption of 1267"
Also see "Bristlecone pine tree rings and volcanic eruptions over the last 5000 yr"
https://media.longnow.org/files/2/Salzer_Hughes_2007.pdfAnd "Marine sediments unlock secrets about climate change in South Africa"
https://theconversation.com/marine-sediments-unlock-secrets-about-climate-change-in-south-africa-56942And "Climate connections between the hemisphere revealed by deep sea sediment core/ice core correlations"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012821X96000830Awww... Australia is feeling left out. There there, "12,000 year temperature record"
https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/12000-year-temperature-record
@
HoraceGreenley On the side of climate change there are multiple independent models converging to very similar results.
Opposed to climate change there is nitpicking. Yes, you can always question this ice core or that model's methane equation, but it's all nitpicking.
When climate change deniers actually have a numerical climate model that both accurately backcasts all the prior data and forecasts a different future climate, you'll have a leg to stand on. You can always find a few more nits to pick and I don't have the patience to address every nit.
You have no model, you have no backcasts or forecasts, you have nits. If that's enough to satisfy you, so be it.
Regardless of your nits, your original claim here,
the historical data that forms the basis of Climate Change models was faked
is dead. It doesn't hold up under inspection. The two 'climate gates' didn't uncover anything terrible despite your beliefs to the contrary, and, because science is so decentralized, climate science doesn't need East Anglia at all.
@
HoraceGreenley And conveniently, none of the climate skeptics managed to keep a copy of the definitive proof of climate change malfeasance.
RIIIIIGHT.But dippyjoe has a friend who has it,
LOL!!!When you start proposing that Fox News and the Wall St Journal and National Review and The Sun are all participating in some kind of leftwing blackout of alleged definitive proof of climate change malfeaasance, then I have to conclude that from your perspective reality has a bias.
@
HoraceGreenley What you've done is demonstrate clearly that you've got nothing here; that your original allegation:
the historical data that forms the basis of Climate Change models was faked
is dead. It doesn't hold up under inspection. The two 'climate gates' didn't uncover anything terrible despite your beliefs to the contrary, the 3rd one is a figment of your imagination, and, because the science is so decentralized, climate science doesn't need East Anglia at all.
