Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#2Ignore that man behind the curtain.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#3Any scientist who refuses to release all data, and exact methods of analysis (suitable to allow someone else to reproduce it) should be utterly ignored.
Any conclusions reached - even in part - from data that has not been full released should be ignored.
That said, is there any evidence of global warming?
I really do want to know - is there any evidence based on data that has been fully released?
I fail to understand how not releasing data was ever tolerated. Isn't that the hallmark of science? That someone else can reproduce your work? And if they can't you are just a crank?
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#4Any scientist who refuses to release all data, and exact methods of analysis (suitable to allow someone else to reproduce it) should be utterly ignored. Any conclusions reached - even in part - from data that has not been full released should be ignored. That said, is there any evidence of global warming? I really do want to know - is there any evidence based on data that has been fully released? I fail to understand…
Yes. Try going to this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R...)
Global warming is real.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#5Additionally, this is a blog-clone of this article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962332 and all the same comments apply.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#6Any scientist who refuses to release all data, and exact methods of analysis (suitable to allow someone else to reproduce it) should be utterly ignored. Any conclusions reached - even in part - from data that has not been full released should be ignored. That said, is there any evidence of global warming? I really do want to know - is there any evidence based on data that has been fully released? I fail to understand…
Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R... ) Global warming is real.
I think the parent was really hoping for a link to the source data, along with a rigorous explanation of how it was acquired. Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained.
That's not to say that they might not be correct, but it would be nice to see a link to the graph, the raw data, and a detailed explanation of every step in the chain between measurement and graph.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#7Any scientist who refuses to release all data, and exact methods of analysis (suitable to allow someone else to reproduce it) should be utterly ignored. Any conclusions reached - even in part - from data that has not been full released should be ignored. That said, is there any evidence of global warming? I really do want to know - is there any evidence based on data that has been fully released? I fail to understand…
Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R... ) Global warming is real.
Then why is their resistance from the scientists. Right now, only data can speak louder than the talking heads.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R... ) Global warming is real.
Then why is their resistance from the scientists. Right now, only data can speak louder than the talking heads.
I imagine it's because a lot of climate scientists have had to put up with skeptics misinterpreting their data and then slandering them in blogs. My understanding is that scientists are more than willing to exchange data with other qualified scientists who have the training to be able to correctly interpret data, but not to conspiracy blogging hitmen.
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why is their resistance from the scientists. Right now, only data can speak louder than the talking heads.
I imagine it's because a lot of climate scientists have had to put up with skeptics misinterpreting their data and then slandering them in blogs. My understanding is that scientists are more than willing to exchange data with other qualified scientists who have the training to be able to correctly interpret data, but not to conspiracy blogging hitmen.
What makes Steve McIntyre unqualified? The fact that he debunked some of Mann's work?
Re: Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R... ) Global warming is real.
I think the parent was really hoping for a link to the source data, along with a rigorous explanation of how it was acquired. Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained. That's not to say that they might not be correct, but it would be nice to see a link to the graph, the raw data, and…
> Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained.
A publication generally has a page limit. Authors generally have a lot to say, so they leave everything out that would be "common knowledge" amongst experts in their field. After all, that's the target audience they're writing for. If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no doubt it will be explained or given.
The problem is, the debate has been heavily politicised. Scientists aren't politicians. If somebody with pre-conceived notions comes along, they will do what any non-media-conscious person would do: tell them to get lost. Nobody wants to be the target of a show-trial. Unfortunately, because of the heavy politicisation, a strong "us against them" feeling has evolved, which makes people regard honest criticism as suspect.
It's not right. However, since these are humans, it is understandable.
The best thing we—people interested in an honest scientific debate—can do is to back out of the political discussion and let scientists handle it. Let sceptical scientists do their job. Let the debate be held in scientific journals, not in newspapers and blogs.