Thread: Scientific Fraud

Originally Posted by El Kabong

That's the RSS providing that information the IPCC uses RSS data to provide them data to compare and contrast their computer models with

Professor Myles Allen has said "The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future."





So it SEEMS to me from graphs, and what the scientists themselves are saying is that there has been a PAUSE in warming....since around 1997-1998, but I suppose I'm STILL wrong according to you

Still missing the point. Instead of thinking for yourself, you continue to cite websites that are not reputable sources of scientific information.

The first graphic is posted here:

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996 | Climate Depot

Hmm. Scientific credibility? Do the people hosting this site have credible academic credentials? Hmmm...

Climate Depot - SourceWatch

Maybe not.

The second is a meme that may or may not depict accurate quotes from these three people. Also not what I challenged you to do. This is second hand information, at best. You would fail any course on research methods at any university in the world. Do you simply not know what a reputable source is? Memes, Wikipedia, and random websites do not constitute reputable sources. In order for these to count, you need to first establish the credibility of these people and then post audio or video links of them making these statements. These are hearsay. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but the way you have presented them is very weak.

The third graphic is the most puzzling. Here is your claim again, to refresh your memory:

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

And you then post a graph with a line of best fit that clearly shows a positive increase, albeit small. I hate to break it to you, but by no measure on the planet is a positive number equal to zero (that's due to the trichotomy property of real numbers). Essentially you posted a graph that rebuts your claim as evidence of your claim. Wow.

All this is still beside the point. I want YOU to analyze any of the data sets published at any of the numerous links I provided for you. All of those are reputable sources; i.e., the data is made public with complete transparency so that anyone who wishes to contest the validity may do so. This is essential for "good" science.

I didn't ask you to post graphs from a website to go along with the quotes you've posted from yet other websites. I've seen these graphs before and here's the thing. I can explain why these are misrepresentations and - as you so eloquently put it - "bad science." Hell, one of em still has the link at the top! This is the whole point. You seem to have ZERO expertise to tell if these are "good" graphs or "bad" graphs.

You cannot tell me if these graphs are accurate or not. What was the methodology used to create the "line" that fits the data depicted in these graphs? This is where you provide an explanation: what methods were used to fit the data here (and you must be able to verify the authenticity of your answer)?

You cannot tell me if the data depicted in these graphs is accurate. I provided you with numerous links to verify the data for yourself, yet you persist in showing me things posted on a website. You should provide justification that this data is correct, or at least that it corresponds with publicly published data that is out there for the whole world to see, transparently. This is where you provide an answer: Does this data agree with that published by any reputable scientific source? (Again, you must provide some type of justification - "I got it from a website I trust" doesn't cut it. Compare this data with that published and verify its authenticity.)

You say you don't trust scientists, yet you trust the scientists that created these graphs - enough so that you present them as evidence. See the double standard?

Since I also have internet access, I too can visit the skeptic websites and see these graphs in all their glory. The issue is that you have ZERO expertise to ascertain if these graphs are accurate representations of the data or not. This is your challenge.

Use the published data to make a logical, scientific argument to support your case. Don't post someone else's results - that's plagiarism, and usually gets you a failing grade. I want to see your argument that supports your claim. So far all you've done is visited a bunch of websites with the same opinion as you. That's not evidence. That's lame.

I'm prepared to perform my analysis and present my conclusions, complete with logical arguments, empirical data, and statistical analysis. As soon as you make an honest effort to do the same, I'll present mine.

It is simple. Quit dancing around. Playing keyboard warrior doesn't cut it here. You bash my profession, so I'm calling you out.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Any time now.

Allow me to retort....


Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov


Climate.gov ....that a credible site? Hmmm?


And if I read this article correctly it says "Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero"....hmmm well that's just curious that is.

But I suppose I'll be outside with a thermometer for 15 years...I'll let you know when I shoot up my personal satellite as well

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Allow me to retort....


Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov


Climate.gov ....that a credible site? Hmmm?


And if I read this article correctly it says "Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero"....hmmm well that's just curious that is.

But I suppose I'll be outside with a thermometer for 15 years...I'll let you know when I shoot up my personal satellite as well

Yet another article. When I get a chance later I'll post a handful of links to websites that rebut your claim, since that seems to be the best you can do.

The challenge still stands. It is simple, yet you avoid it. I don't even think you understand what I'm asking you to do. I want to see your analysis of the data. Not anyone else's on the planet. Yours alone. You do realize I'm asking you do do a simple, high school level data analysis, right? Yet you avoid providing a direct response over and over again.

Links to websites simply do not count. You made a claim, but aren't man enough to back it up with any type of argument made by yourself. You're relying on others to do your explaining for you.

Very, very weak.

So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?

I never said that. I'm saying that you seem to be incapable of doing your own research. You've spent several posts here dancing around the challenge like a ballerina.

What I'm asking you to do ain't rocket science, but your refusal to even address it speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by bcollins

I never said that.

Fine, have it your way.

How's that analysis going? Do you need some help?

So while you're working on that, maybe you can help me understand something. Previously in this thread you stated, and I quote:

"The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT."

And you then proceed to post an article published by the NOAA as "evidence" to support your claim. Moreover, you question if *I* believe the NOAA is a good source - again, I quote:

"So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?"

So which is it? Is the NOAA a trusted source of information ONLY when they agree with your beliefs?

It's pretty piss poor when you bash the hell out of them and then use their report to support your claim.

I thought you were better than this.

Oh yeah - still waiting.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Lyle's analysis of any reputable source of data to support his claim:

I'm not a meteorologist, climatologist or scientist of any type. I do consider myself to be smarter than the average bear, informed, a natural skeptic of most things and fairly analytical. That being said, I depend on reputable scientists for information and since their studies are often not easy to read for the lay man I depend on analysts and publications to put the studies into context for me. I have read the same things stating that NOAA and the IPCC report that global average temps have not risen in the last 15-17 years. When Ronald Bailey, a respected science correspondent, and Dr. James Hansen, a proponent of AGW, who works at Columbia University and NASA report these things and there isn't a immediate castigation of them I take it as fact.


Ronald Bailey -
Ronald Bailey : Staff - Reason.com
Heads Up Climate Change Combatants: Global Warming Likely To Resume This Year - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Dr. Hansen -
Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville shows that most of the AGW predictive models were incorrect in the climate behavior over the last 10+years I take a serious pause on how well we think we understand the climate. The earth's climate is and has always been fluid. We have had something around 10 ice ages since the planets beginning and each has been followed by a warming period. So the question isn't really is the earth's climate warming but what affect does human behavior have on it. If I and 99 other people took a data sampling and derived a methodology to predict future results but 95 of us were wrong then the correct response would be that there is something wrong with our data (which there very well might be considering the condition of many weather stations), the methodology of the predictive analysis or both. I don't deny climate change, nor do I deny that we are in a warming trend on the planet, nor do I deny that with billions of us alive that human behavior can affect the climate but my analysis of the science provided is that the scientific community does not understand the relationship between human behavior and the climate's change nearly as well as they thought they did.


Dr. Christy
John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climatologist John Christy: "The Science Is Not Settled" - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Dr. Christy's data
Global Temperature Report :: UAHuntsville
Weather Station Issues
Amazing Climate Predictions Revealed—Climate Models Reviled - Reason.com

This is precisely the problem. When you do not have particular scientific expertise, it becomes difficult to determine who to trust - especially when some scientists in a field challenge the opinion of the greater majority of their peers. Who do you trust? How does the laymen determine who is "right"?

This is a very difficult question to answer. In an ideal world, everyone would have at least enough education in basic scientific techniques to be able to spot fallacious logic and poor statistical analysis. I believe these two abilities alone would make it much easier for the scientific community to convince the general public of a consensus opinion.

While I appreciate your respect for these scientists, they are in the vast minority concerning their particular opinions. Since challenging Lyle to perform his own analysis of the data, I have been perusing the academic literature so that I could better understand what the majority of the climatology community believes, as well as what the skeptics believe to be true.

When Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville shows that most of the AGW predictive models were incorrect in the climate behavior over the last 10+years I take a serious pause on how well we think we understand the climate.

The first issue concerns the findings of Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. These climatologists published several papers that claimed discrepancies between the amount of warming measured near the surface and that measured by satellites. Here's a link to one of the papers in this series:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This series of papers is one of the primary sources of current climate change skepticism. These studies were used to cast doubt on the models and the influence of humans on global warming. These papers are still quoted today as a primary source arguing against human-based global warming.

Unfortunately, the contents of these papers were found to be filled with numerous errors. The first was addressed in a paper by Mears and Wentz:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs5...ntz%202005.pdf

with follow ups:

Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere [eScholarship]

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cli...Meyer-2005.pdf

The authors of the erroneous papers, Christy and Spencer, were quick to admit their mistakes after pointed out by their peers. Of course, correcting the errors in the originals led to new papers for Christy and Spencer:

http://www.homogenisation.org/files/..._etal_1998.pdf

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...su/uah-msu.pdf

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

In short, one of the fundamental cornerstones of climate skepticism was found to be significantly flawed. Once the corrections were made, it is interesting to note that the UAH-MSU dataset matched much more closely the predictions made by climate models.

...my analysis of the science provided is that the scientific community does not understand the relationship between human behavior and the climate's change nearly as well as they thought they did.

Well - at least a few of the scientists made significant mistakes. Once these mistakes were corrected, the consensus is now much clearer. Christy and Spencer still beat the drum, trying to save face, but in the scientific community, for scientists of their stature, these mistakes were HUGE.

When Ronald Bailey, a respected science correspondent, and Dr. James Hansen, a proponent of AGW, who works at Columbia University and NASA report these things and there isn't a immediate castigation of them I take it as fact.

I didn't see anything about Bailey in the literature, but James Hansen published the following paper in 2006 which seems to contradict the attributed statement:

Global temperature change

Where did you see a reference for Hansen's statement? It's possible he changed his mind.

(NOTE: It seems some of the links look broken, but they still work for me. If you have any trouble, let me know and I will send a URL)

In short, one of the fundamental cornerstones of climate skepticism was found to be significantly flawed. Once the corrections were made, it is interesting to note that the UAH-MSU dataset matched much more closely the predictions made by climate models.

The three preceding links are a bit beyond me technically. That being said, they are dated 1998, 1999 and 2002. His latest data and study suggesting wide spread differences in predicted and real temperatures was well after that. But for arguments sake lets say he isn't remotely close to correct, that doesn't change the fact that predictions of AGW doom and gloom have been completely off.


Regarding Dr. Hansen


In a global temperature update through 2012 [PDF], James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies report:

The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade (emphasis added). It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".

Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Dr. Revell who did the first study of CO2 in the atmosphere and started this shitstorm turned around and came to the "denier" side.


Why bcollins should I graph data when it's already been done AND proves my point AND is from a source you find reputable What is the point? It's overkill.

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

In short, one of the fundamental cornerstones of climate skepticism was found to be significantly flawed. Once the corrections were made, it is interesting to note that the UAH-MSU dataset matched much more closely the predictions made by climate models.

The three preceding links are a bit beyond me technically. That being said, they are dated 1998, 1999 and 2002. His latest data and study suggesting wide spread differences in predicted and real temperatures was well after that. But for arguments sake lets say he isn't remotely close to correct, that doesn't change the fact that predictions of AGW doom and gloom have been completely off.




Regarding Dr. Hansen


In a global temperature update through 2012 [PDF], James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies report:

The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade (emphasis added). It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".

Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com

With regard to Dr. Hansen, this source is a blatant misrepresentation of his position on the warming trend in the past decade (in fact, the link to the actual document no longer exists at this URL). He indicates that, while the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade, the trend of the last decade is still one of increase. Here is a link to an article about a 2013 BBC Radio 4 interview with Dr. Hansen:

Global warming has not stalled, insists world's best-known climate scientist | Environment | theguardian.com

and an audio link to the interview itself:



The question is posed at 0:18, and he corrects the assumption at 0:44.

There are numerous other recent videos on YouTube of Dr. Hansen, where he clearly states his position - and he clearly does not agree with the claim that warming has stalled.

It is always best to get an expert's opinion directly from the expert, if possible - there are plenty of naysayers who want to distort the reality for one reason or another, and experts are frequently misrepresented. Checking the validity of sources is crucial in modern times - especially since there is such a large degree of deliberate misrepresentation occurring.

As for the UAH-MSU dataset, those are only the papers I posted. If you dig a little deeper on Google Scholar, you will see that Christy and Spencer are continuing to play damage control by making ongoing corrections to their dataset. Spencer made a drastic revision in 2006, but I haven't looked for the actual paper yet.

Correcting mistakes is a vital part of the scientific process; however, given the severity of the errors found by the community at large, this dataset has lost a large degree of credibility and is no longer considered nearly as reputable as that of the NCDC/NOAA dataset, or that of the Hadley Centre.

Why bcollins should I graph data when it's already been done AND proves my point AND is from a source you find reputable What is the point? It's overkill.

You first bash the NOAA as disreputable. I just posted your own quote to that effect:

"The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT."

And then you embrace them as reputable when it suits you:

"So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?"

So essentially, you are all over the place with your opinion, contradicting yourself left and right.

So why should you examine the data yourself? When you clearly can't decide if you trust the experts, then your best recourse is to do the damn analysis yourself. You are right - it has already been done - both in a scientifically defensible manner and in a way that commits egregious scientific mistakes. You keep picking one without looking at the other.

In fact, you presented one graph that clearly rebutted your own claim!

This is why you should do it yourself. See what your conclusions are based on your work, since you clearly can't decide if you trust the experts or not.

And while we're at it - answer this question, with a SIMPLE yes or no:

Do you believe the NOAA is a reputable source of information about climate science?

Well NOAA did get caught fudging data before, although when that data supported the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" position not many of your fellow scientists called them out on that....I mean really why would they there's grant money to be had and one never wants to look like a "denier" when in the scientific community now do they?

NOAA has been caught using bad data before and they've been called out on it by a guy I'm sure you hate with every fiber of your being, Anthony Watts. His research...yes scoff at it if you will....but it made NOAA change up their hottest years and months. Mr. Watts found that several weather stations are NOT reporting data and NOAA was estimating temperatures for those stations....not certain you'd call that good data to base any kind of model on.

I'm a pragmatic person, I am so instead of getting all insane about humans destroying the Earth I just take a deep breath, look at Earth's history and relax. The Earth has had hot times and cold times and well before the Industrial Revolution ever thought of happening. It's had times where CO2 has been a bigger portion of our atmosphere and life has thrived and there have been times with little CO2 in the atmosphere and it was hard times for living things to survive. Again even the "Don of Global Warming" Dr. Revell had his doubts about how much CO2 affected the climate.

NOAA has admitted to a very long pause in warming, they are adamant that it doesn't change their predictions of gloom and doom....fine they want to believe it, their data says it, fine cool go ahead knock yourselves out. But if we're already doomed (and from what most alarmists say we are) then don't tax the shit out of me for no reason, don't tell me what car I can drive, and don't make life in general more difficult and more expensive. Humans are responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions which make up a smidgen of the 0.03-0.04% of CO2 that makes up a teeny tiny little speck of the Earth's climate....so again what is the end game here? Do you guys want humans to produce 0% of the CO2 emissions That would mean everyone would have to stop exhaling or do we want to cut that CO2 emission level down to a "reasonable level" which begs the question "What's a reasonable level"? 3.0% 2.5%? 2.0%?

And then allow me to ask...since you are a man of science and you know the dangers waiting for man in the very near future due to this unholy Anthropogenic Global Warming...what prey tell does YOUR carbon footprint look like? Shrank that down have you? Knowing what you know, surely you must have....I mean if not we're all doomed.

Well NOAA did get caught fudging data before, although when that data supported the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" position not many of your fellow scientists called them out on that....I mean really why would they there's grant money to be had and one never wants to look like a "denier" when in the scientific community now do they?

I've already tried to explain to you that grant money isn't like winning the lottery, as you seem to believe. At most, an academic scientist can receive up to two month's salary as compensation from a grant - which barely covers the time and effort it takes to write a proposal. See previous link to the NSF grant policies and guidelines as an example.

The reason most scientists in the community don't want to be seen as a "denier" is that the evidence doesn't support that position - no matter what the blogs, media outlets, and skeptic websites want to purport. The scientists are much more informed than any of these people, but unfortunately, these people believe their opinions are more convincing than scientific reason.

This is another reason I want you to do the analysis yourself. I don't think you will see the results you tout as true.


His research...yes scoff at it if you will....but it made NOAA change up their hottest years and months. Mr. Watts found that several weather stations are NOT reporting data and NOAA was estimating temperatures for those stations....not certain you'd call that good data to base any kind of model on.

Well...I'd say that's overstating the case quite a bit. He did find issues with some stations, true enough. But again - as is the case with most skeptics - it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Is it reasonable to expect perfection with every aspect of scientific investigation? Absolutely not. Do scientists expect a certain amount of inaccuracies and incorporate a margin of error into all computations? Absolutely. Do a certain amount af inaccuracies imply that the whole data set should be considered "bad", as you put it? I don't think so, the experts at NOAA don't think so, and the science of statistics doesn't think so.

The effect of the bias introduced into the data was statistically insignificant, as clearly demonstrated by real climate professionals - you know, who actually finished an undergraduate degree and went on to earn PhDs, unlike a certain climate skeptic:

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record - Menne - 2010 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

Watts is not an expert, nor should he be treated as one. I don't hate the guy at all - I think he's a joke. I've read quite a bit of the material on his blog, and it is honestly funny. He likes to discuss his research and findings - most of which have never been published or even submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. The papers he has worked on have been roundly rejected by the climatology community as a whole (e.g., the previous link). If this is the best you can do, then I really understand why you have a hard time understanding science. Some guy with about one-third the credentials needed to perform high level scientific research is not a respectable source of scientific information.

Would you go to someone who hasn't even started medical school for serious medical help? This is about where this guy ranks.

Again even the "Don of Global Warming" Dr. Revell had his doubts about how much CO2 affected the climate.

Much of this ballyhoo was due to remarks made by Dr. Revell taken completely out of context. His daughter published a rebuttal to this claim in the Washington Post, September 13, 1992:

Carolyn Revelle, What My Father Really Said — OSS Foundation

(This link is a transcript of that article - you can check its veracity at the Washington Post archives.)

NOAA has admitted to a very long pause in warming

Ok. Once again, this is misleading. The article you posted

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov

addresses surface temperatures specifically. This does not provide the entire picture of global warming - the experts also consider atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures as well. If you examine the NOAA's FAQ section, the NOAA's position on the question

"Didn't the globe stop warming after 1998, a period when human activities emitted more carbon dioxide than in any other period in human history? And, if so, doesn't this mean climate is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously thought?"

is clearly answered with:

"No, the globe did not stop warming after 1998. While 1998 was one of the ten warmest years on record, the other nine warmest years have all occurred after 1998.[2] It's important to remember that, even during global warming periods, every year won't be warmer than the year before, and there may even be several years in a row of cooler average temperatures. That's why it's more reliable to look at changes between 5-year and 10-year blocks of time over a span of decades before drawing conclusions about climate sensitivity.
It's true that humans have released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from 1998 to 2012 than in any other 15-year period in history, and it's true there was a slowdown in the rate of global warming during that time. Most of the excess heat (>80%) from global warming has been going into the ocean.[17] The point is global warming didn't stop over the last decade; most of the warming happened in the ocean rather than in the lower atmosphere.
Scientists are always reassessing their estimates of climate sensitivity based on observed changes in temperature and ocean heat content. It's too early to conclude that the climate system isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as scientists thought, though that possibility is being actively researched."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions | NOAA Climate.gov

But if we're already doomed (and from what most alarmists say we are)...

Once again, this language is the work of skeptics to denounce the reality of what the experts are really saying.

IF we do not take action to reverse current trends, THEN there is a potential for catastrophic consequences. We still have not reached a point where it is too late to stop the warming trend.

...then don't tax the shit out of me for no reason, don't tell me what car I can drive, and don't make life in general more difficult and more expensive.

This is the bottom line, right here. Don't mess up my comforts. Don't make my life difficult. Don't take any actions that might cut into my profit margins.

God forbid we care about anyone other than ourselves.