(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

All research is funded by somebody (industry or government) unless it is grad student research and even then it is sometimes funded. Do you think the current government which is very pro climate change isn't spending money on research that supports their agenda?

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

You really need to go to a university that does research and learn about grant writing. The government has plenty of control over research. Want a government grant to study something? It better fit with their agenda or no funding for you. The control what is studied in the first place by controlling who gets grants.

(06-05-2015 08:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:04 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

You can link every article on the net that shows funding of climate skeptics but those funds will never come close to the amount of funds poured into climate change "research", the federal government alone spends billions upon billions.

Again, that money doesn't come with any semblance of the amount of strings private funding often does. There is a system in place to prevent widespread bias, and it's worked fairly well so far. Seeing the parallels between tobacco and this situation, it's hard to come to the conclusion you seem so insistent on.

Government research grants have to get approval by the current administration. If the hypothesis or area of study doesn't fit the agenda no money is granted. University researchers and grant writers know if they want government funding they have to toe the line.

(06-04-2015 05:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why does data change?

Nothing False About Temperature Data

Quote:The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:

Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.

NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.

As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.

For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.

This is the gist of the NOAA study referenced in the OP as well as increased number of observations over the Arctic. They are increasing weight given to ocean buoy readings to cool past observations at the same time as adjusting for more numerous Arctic readings which show accelerated warming due to a past "underestimation" of Arctic readings. The net effect can only be exactly what the very gentleman's opinion that you discredit by him being a climate change denier is. That is that adjusting past temps down, and increasing current temps leads to a steeper curve.

The problem with the explanation you posted is that it's more reasons that data collections should be updated with regards to current observations, not revisions of past data. If a building is put up next to a NOAA observations site, move the site, don't continue to collect data for a period of time and then revise it.

Ever look at a map of the US stations? There are 114 of them, and they aren't exactly in metropolitan areas that have experienced artificial warming through construction and growth - a reason frequently given for data revision.

Not exactly, over the past couple decades they've started to use buoys to take readings more and more as opposed to using readings taken by ships. Buoys are known to produce readings that are cooler than those taken by ships. Prior to WWII water temps were taken by dipping a bucket into the water and then measuring the water temp. They then began to measure the temp at the ship's engine water intake. This method shows a slightly higher temp at the same place and time than dipping a bucket of water. If you look at the data over time without adjusting for the change in method it would appear that there was an increase in water temp around WWII but in fact we changed our method of data collection. They're claiming a similar adjustment needs to be made now because of a switch to buoys over the past two decades. Not really a question of accuracy but of consistency. If in 1995 1 out of every 5 data points were collected using buoys and in 2015 3 out of every 5 were then on average the trend would be skewed downward. That's what they're claiming. You can believe it or not.

The average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit)

According to data from NASA, the global temperature in 2013 averaged 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 degrees Celsius)

It would seem to me that the bouy temperatures would actually be WARMER since the average ocean temperature is greater than the average air temperature. You might be onto something here.

You want to play a 'follow the money game'? Plenty of people reference CO2 as the 'greenhouse gas' that we need to focus our efforts to reduce. I find this quite absurd for a couple reasons. First, it's a naturally occurring gas that the planet is more than capable of absorbing. Even with man's influence, the increase over the past couple decades is averaging just about 2 parts per million. CO2 levels have been higher than they are now prior to the industrial revolution due to natural processes. Man is contributing to an increase, but it isn't a catastrophic situation that it is made out to be. In the entirety of man's use of fossil fuels, CO2 levels have increased 30%. Secondly, it hasn't been proven to be doing any definite harm. Global temperature increases can't be linked directly to the increase in CO2 alone, other gases that have a much greater influence on warming must be taken into account. Plant and animal species are not dying off because of too much CO2, and the higher levels pose no concrete danger to any known ecosystem.
Now this is where the money comes in. CO2 is easy to vilify because its the man gas released through the burning of fossil fuels. The alternative energy sources that are largely carbon neutral and renewable aren't yet perfected, nor are they as reliable or cost effective. Green energy proponents have generated tons of financial support for their cause while vilifying CO2.

The greenhouse gas that has a more profound impact on global warming is methane, yet you rarely hear that. While CO2 has increased by 30%, methane has increased by 145% and has 25 times the capacity to trap heat that CO2 has. While renewable energy has been pushed as a neatly wrapped up solution to the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions even though it isn't, there is no solution to curbing the increase in methane gasses. No solution means no way to profit. Without a way to profit from eliminating methane, the focus has remained on the much less harmful CO2.

(06-05-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If you believed the industry research at the time, there was no real evidence tobacco made people sick. Do you not get the parallel?

and if you believe that politicians don't see 'climate change' as a way to make just as much money as the tobacco industry, then you haven't been paying attention.

You should be skeptical of ALL such research and funding... and not merely 'one side'. I agree that man contributes to changes in the environment... of course we do... and much of it isn't good... but since we're not talking about population control or eliminating/reducing the number of cows and pigs... but instead only about burning fossil fuels... which is an obvious deep financial pocket for politicians... and because we are focusing on the relatively clean engines and processes in the US as opposed to the relatively dirty engines and processes in many other parts of the world, it causes me to question their motivations further. And finally, since we don't talk about it using rational and undeniable terms like we did during the 1970's in being good stewards of our environment and instead we talk about it in terms of cataclysms that will end life on earth (and creating 'monsters' is how you gain power)... PLUS so little of the focus on solutions seems to be on actual current relatively inexpensive working solutions in other parts of the world, like nuclear power... but instead on unproven and even undiscovered investigation... I am a skeptic of the motivations of those on 'the other side' of the debate.

I believe man contributes to climate change... I just don't believe that people who insist NOT on proving their own case or even on low cost solutions, but merely on quieting dissent and spending trillions have any high moral ground from which to preach.... any more than the research funded by the tobacco lobby in the 60's.