New technology can't correct "bad" past technology. It's funny how science "evolves", yet they still have no clue how to correct "incorrect" data especially if they don't understand how incorrect the original data was. They use their computer generated climate models (GCMs) that are based on their own truth of the way things are and then correct the past data because they have evolved through their GCMs. As if they were playing God themselves.
If the climate science industry "thinks" they are getting smarter by manipulating data to make their "newly-found" intelligence (GCMs) work better, then they should clearly admit they were wrong to start with. I doubt that you will ever get them to admit they were ever wrong though. Climate science arrogance just leads to more arrogant assumptions. That's just how they approach life in general. (No one can teach them anything. They will learn it on their own!)
One day, when their GCMs are still failing, they will realize that their bloomers are full of "arrogant" pudding and they will have to excuse themselves to go and clean up after themselves again only this time they may find that the smell is too unbearable. Climate science truly "stinks" of manipulated data and false representations of the climate. That's for sure!!!
Science didn't give us the LIA Elizabeth. We have historical accounts as well. What some in science have been trying to do is erase that history by fudging and finagling the data because it is inconvenient to their Cause.
Obviously I don't agree with Sage and Max about evolution by natural selection. Humans have created evolution by selection in pigeons, cats, dogs, cows, etc. I don't think it is much of stretch to see how nature does it as well. We have fossil evidence of "missing links" and DNA evidence to corroborate it. I didn't want to get into a discussion of it, but missing links is a poor way to say it because every individual in your ancestry is a "missing link" except maybe your parents, grandparents, ggparents, and that is about as far as most of us go. There is much to learn but they don't need to adjust data to fit their predictions. I don't think there are any and wouldn't call phrenology or crytozoology science, at least not until they are proved and some things wont be. They are more like theories waiting to happen.
Michael Ver, it is called glacial recession. Glaciers advance and recede all the time. The one thing they don't do is stay the same. What you are witnessing is a result of gravity and changes in weather/climate that would happen if we were emitting CO2 or not.
Kano, The funding from pharma to the FDA is for a New drug application. A fee the pharma company pays regardless of the verdict from the FDA. The FDA has stopped many drugs from going onto market, even though they were paid the fee. The fee is just to pay for their time to look at the data, not a bribe.
The science behind pharma is strong. We run 2 blinded confirmatory trials to show efficacy. We strongly control for bias. There is only one thing we do not do prior to marketing the drug. That is long-term (>5 years) side effects. You can look into most all recall of drugs on the markets and why they are recalled and you will note that most of them are recalled for long-term side effects.
So why do we not test for this and why are drugs pulled from the market for this. We do not test for this pre-market because it is nearly impossible to get people into the clinics for 5 years straight and taking the medication consistently for that period of time. This does not mean we don't test for this, though. We are required to track adverse events after marketing and run phase 4 trials for safety.
The reason the drugs are pulled from the market, is because the pharma companies have run the phase 4 trials, found an issue and reported that issue. We tell on ourselves.
Now I will grant that there have been some accounts of misconduct in the pharma industry. BUT, recognize that there are many forms of cancer that are no longer a death sentence. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Look at the treatment of diabetes now versus 20 years ago. Their progress is made based upon real science.
The data like historic temperatures have not been altered. The explanation of why the temperatures have changed may change as new theroies are proposed , but that is how all science works.
I am 66 years old. 45 years ago, I could go skiing around our mountain cabin, here in Norway, in an open landscape. Today the cabin is surrounded by short trees. Doesn't that mean that the tree border has gone up due to a warming of the climate?
I have been flying a tiny aircraft for the past two decades and I have seen the Hardangerj?kulen glacier shrink quite a bit. Is it something wrong with my sight or do you think that I am spreading hoax because I am a communist Muslim or a Illuminati or a member of the New Worl or a Nazi or that Al Gore sends me a pay check every month... what do you think?
The average annual temperature in the northern part of the northern hemisphre is going up. Get over it! What causes it, a natural cycle or an excessive burning of fossil fuel, is something that can, and is discussed.
Please stop discussing WHAT but WHY instead. I guess you are American. If so, be aware that ONLY Americans manage to mix science and politics.
Yes, Evolution is one. Years back the proponents of this evolution crap tried to talk the scientific community into believing in a 'missing link'. Ha! Ha! True scientists correctly pointed out that there was a missing chain.
Another science that has been corrupted is Cold Fusion. Twenty-five or thirty years ago there were some scientists that said they had devised a method of cold fusion and doctored up some data. I was taken in initially, as it really be a boon to mankind if this could really happen. But alas it was soon found out that the data was corrupted.
Then there is the old snake oil science, by Dr. Smith or Jones. We all have heard of that, where some fast talker throws out a song and dance and clears town before he is found out.
And if you are a prominent scientist, like Jimmy Hansen, you are trusted enough to doctor data and have it believed for a time.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
It is so easy to do if you are the head of GISS. However there are enough honest scientists out there who caught the little creep in his evil scheme and the truth came out. But yet you will see some people on this site who are deceived, whether willingly or out of ignorance, and still claim the 'ten warmest years' based on Jimmy the now full time Communist Hansen's proven corrupt figures.
Oh yes, big time. We would like to believe that science is pure and absolutely true as far as our understanding can go, but that's been proven false countless (countless!!) times. It even goes so far that some widely accepted scientific theories have evolved from political agendas, and the scientific "proof" was so graciously staged.
What a moronic question. Have any of these idiots ever taken a course in science?
Sure - other sciences that fit this definition are Alchemy, Phrenology, Eugenics, paranormal phycology, cryto-zoology to name a few. And they're all as real as so-called "global warming"
To some extent that is all of them. Often we can observe the results and until our measurements match those results we know we are not measuring it right so we work on the measurements until we get them to match observation.
Or is climatology the only one?
you can adjust any data in anything depends on how ethical you are
Only certain scientists do and they do in all fields. A lot are honest but of course everyone ignores those to fit with what they want to think.
I love how the skeptics/deniers are happy enough with science when it gives them 'the Little Ice Age', the 'solar minimum', things like the PDO and El Nino and La Nina, the absorption lines of water vapor, the CO2 concentrations from times gone by, and all the other little tit-bits of information you like to discuss. Yet when the scientific community providing you with the data you like to discuss turn around and say the planet's getting warmer and we're responsible, suddenly you throw a strop and argue that science is flawed.
Yawn.
Yes medical science, they do it all the time, everything in medical science is funded by pharmaceutical companies, from colleges, to journals to individual practioners, even the FDA receives funds from them in a backdoor way.
Yes there is another. The pseudoscience of evolution. There have been similar outright frauds and scandals for about the last 200 years. And they are fairly frequent just like the intense propaganda we see with the man-made Global Warming SCAM.
This is a fun page to read:
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...
-----------------------
Humans are showing surprise all the time.......and time will say what they can do
thinking like that shows you don't know what science is or how it works
Is there any branch of science that attracts so many delusional deniers?
OH, I know, evolution.
Edit: Maxx. "The pseudoscience of evolution."
I rest my case.
no science operates that way including climate.
The great thing about a scientific paper is that you cannot adjust it once it is published. You can follow-up but published is published. Climate change skeptic Always-Wrong Roy Spencer earned his nickname that way, though it took 15 years to correct his errors.
