CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33182
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:29 am
 


Since this is basically an editorial, it's not appropriate as a news item. But I thought it was a good read, from an insiders perspective on how research and results based science has slowly had to defend centuries old practices from groups that have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

Image

Image

Quote:
A recent headline—"Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers six-figure loss"—marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly funded climate denial, the harassment of scientists, and a tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand.

It’s likely to be a familiar story to my scientist colleagues in Australia, the UK, the US, and elsewhere around the world.

But if you’re not a scientist and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear, too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears to finally be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.
From number crunching to controversy

In 1981, as part of my PhD work, I produced a seven-station New Zealand temperature series known as 7SS to monitor historic temperature trends and variations from Auckland to as far south as Dunedin in southern New Zealand.

A decade later, while at the NZ Meteorological Service in 1991-92, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenization approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites. For example, in 1928, Wellington’s temperature gauge was relocated from an inner suburb near sea level up into the hills at Kelburn, where—due to its higher, cooler location—it recorded much cooler temperatures for the city than before.

With statistical analysis, we could work out how much Wellington’s temperature has really gone up or down since the city’s temperature records began back in 1862 and how much of that change was simply due to the gauge being moved uphill. (You can read more about re-examining NZ temperatures here.)

So far, so uncontroversial.

But in 2008, while I was working for a NZ government-owned research organization—the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)—we updated the 7SS. And we found that at those seven stations across the country, from Auckland down to Dunedin, there was a warming trend of 0.91ºC (1.63ºF) between 1909 and 2008.

Soon after that, things started to get heated.


More at:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/ ... content%29

Image


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:09 am
 


The University of East Anglia scandal let the cat out of the bag on how climatologists 'adjust' temperature data to better fit their agendas and grant applications.

And then there's the fact that it's easier for me to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain access to Edward Snowden's FBI files than it is for me to obtain access to the raw, unadjusted temperature data compiled by NOAA.

If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide, right?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4252
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:16 am
 


Well to be brutally honest I couldnt give a single a fuck even if I wanted too about a 0.9C change over a span of 100 years and good luck to anyone trying to prove that change is either man made or natural with the billions of variables out there, what if self confessed adjustments were off by even a tiny bit, a margin of error it self would be larger than 0.9. Just more sky is falling.

And as for the OP I see it the total opposite way, there is more economic interest to keep GW alive than not. It has turned into a multi billion dollar industry employing 1000's


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:37 am
 


Pales in comparison to the incentive to keep spewing the CO2 in terms of trillions of dollars and many millions employed. Way more economic interest in that direction, otherwise we would have already acted in a serious way - better safe than sorry.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2556
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:03 am
 


Oh....don't be so unimaginative folks!

The people profiting hold shares in both sides...the outcome is irrelevant to them, the fight makes them money hand over fist.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33182
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:27 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The University of East Anglia scandal let the cat out of the bag on how climatologists 'adjust' temperature data to better fit their agendas and grant applications.


Quote:
Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, "concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound" and that the "deniers' arguments were debunked."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/1 ... 42980.html

BartSimpson wrote:
And then there's the fact that it's easier for me to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain access to Edward Snowden's FBI files than it is for me to obtain access to the raw, unadjusted temperature data compiled by NOAA.


http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
About 1,960,000 results (0.48 seconds)

BartSimpson wrote:
If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide, right?


Some of the best minds in science were the ones who threw away what dogma they had been told and looked at the obviousness right in front of them. From Copernicus' Sun centred solar system, to Hubble's detailed records leading to his conclusion that everything in the universe is moving away from each other - all that it took was to see what was always there.

How's your weather today? :!: ;)


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1214
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:57 pm
 


Would it be out of turn if I stated my opinion that I am wary of climate science? Maybe not so much the scientists (Michael Mann, on the other hand...) but more the advocates whose enthusiasm on the subject borders on religious zeal. Using a loaded term like "denier" has become synonymous with "heretic" in my opinion and therefore I have a difficult time taking the debate seriously.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8290
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:13 pm
 


FieryVulpine wrote:
Would it be out of turn if I stated my opinion that I am wary of climate science? Maybe not so much the scientists (Michael Mann, on the other hand...) but more the advocates whose enthusiasm on the subject borders on religious zeal. Using a loaded term like "denier" has become synonymous with "heretic" in my opinion and therefore I have a difficult time taking the debate seriously.

You and I would be of much the same mind here. I am not sure if I am 'wary' of the science but I sure wish the loud advocates would STFU!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10986
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:01 pm
 


All this arguing?..Maybe not consensus.....Maybe not "settled science"...
After all the hype, there is still NO proof that IF the climate is changing(warming) that man is the proximal cause....That big fireball in the east in the morning may have something to do with it, however.
Consider the dollars involved.....Pretty good business to yell "fire" then sell extinguishers, no?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10986
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:01 pm
 


Dp


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4252
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Pales in comparison to the incentive to keep spewing the CO2 in terms of trillions of dollars and many millions employed. Way more economic interest in that direction, otherwise we would have already acted in a serious way - better safe than sorry.


Big Oil and Co have money, power and political clout, they don't need sabotaging small time scientists and their reports who not more than a few people will read anyway. They on the other need GW to keep them employed and grants coming in.

To the common man this climatology science is dubious at best, take the OP for example after all the adjustments made he came with grand total of 0.9. What's to say his adjustments weren't off or what methods he used and why, not like were dealing in big figures that a few hundred either way don't matter.

And lets say it did happen, 0.9 in a 100 years, 1.5 in the next hundred to add for all man made stuff and another 1.5 in the next, that's 3C in the next 200 years, still not the end of the world and who is to say what advances in sciences will be made by then, just look at the last 50. People in 50 even in their wildest dreams couldn't come up with the stuff we take for granted today.

So until anything more than averages and mean temp this and mean temp that comes up, the opinion will remain divided.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:44 pm
 


FieryVulpine wrote:
Would it be out of turn if I stated my opinion that I am wary of climate science? Maybe not so much the scientists (Michael Mann, on the other hand...) but more the advocates whose enthusiasm on the subject borders on religious zeal. Using a loaded term like "denier" has become synonymous with "heretic" in my opinion and therefore I have a difficult time taking the debate seriously.


Ditto.

I've long been of a mind that the zealots have clouded any potential for actual science to be presented and fairly discussed now that they've converted climatology into a political/religious discipline as opposed to a scientific discipline.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:45 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Pales in comparison to the incentive to keep spewing the CO2


Feel free to stop spewing CO2 anytime you want, Andy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10986
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:49 pm
 


CO2 a real greenhouse gas. :mrgreen:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/cro ... 00-077.htm


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:56 pm
 


PluggyRug wrote:


Seems quite beneficial, doesn't it?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.