Jump to content

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire For 'adjusted' Sea-level Data


nivek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

 

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

 

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

 

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

 

 

..snipped

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in short scientists adjusting data in an effort to get more accurate information, is evidence of global conspiracy.

 

Mountians...molehills and utter fox stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryper if someone's sole purpose is to observe sea levels then why would they "decide" to automatically add some amount every year rather than simply measure the damn thing? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryper if someone's sole purpose is to observe sea levels then why would they "decide" to automatically add some amount every year rather than simply measure the damn thing? :shrug:

 

 

Maybe you should ask them.

 

My question is this: how is adding .3 millimeters an exaggeration? Like if sea levels went up one centimeter, that's O.K., but 1.03 centimeters is alarming. If making the stats more alarming is the goal, adding the thickness of a fingernail is not going to do the job. As fraud goes, this is laughably unambitious. So logic dictates there must be another reason. And since I am not alarmed enough to investigate, I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

 

When they decide to fudge the data by a whole fucking millimeter, call me back. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: how is adding .3 millimeters an exaggeration? Like if sea levels went up one centimeter, that's O.K., but 1.03 centimeters is alarming.

Per year, not just one time.

 

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release

 

When they decide to fudge the data by a whole fucking millimeter, call me back. :HaHa:

.3 mm/year * 4 years = 1.2 mm.

 

So I guess you will get a call in four years? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: how is adding .3 millimeters an exaggeration? Like if sea levels went up one centimeter, that's O.K., but 1.03 centimeters is alarming.

Per year, not just one time.

 

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release

 

When they decide to fudge the data by a whole fucking millimeter, call me back. :HaHa:

.3 mm/year * 4 years = 1.2 mm.

 

So I guess you will get a call in four years? ;)

 

Thanks for the link. Not only does it provide a perfectly plausible explanation for the tiny addition, it offers the option of ignoring the addition for those who wish to do so.

 

Another tempest in a teapot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. Not only does it provide a perfectly plausible explanation for the tiny addition, it offers the option of ignoring the addition for those who wish to do so.

It's the perfectly plausible explanation that is being questioned. The research center is giving the data with and without the addition just because it is controversial. :shrug:

 

Would you consider Richard A. Muller to be a trustworthy scientists?

 

I think he's the level headed voice in this extremely polarized debate. He believes global climate change is happening. He also believes humans can be blamed for some, most, or all of it. But he also believes (based on the research he presented to the government some years ago) that the pro camp is bolstering the claims and data. The pro group is just a little bit overzealous about how big the climate change is.

 

But, as usual, things will be exaggerated for and against a position, and the middle ground is always trampled in the stampede of the ensuing battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pro group is just a little bit overzealous about how big the climate change is.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it speaks out on environmental issues, The Heartland Institute inspires the same confidence in me that The Discovery Institute does when it speaks out about evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it speaks out on environmental issues, The Heartland Institute inspires the same confidence in me that The Discovery Institute does when it speaks out about evolution.

Muller works here: http://www.lbl.gov/ as a faculty senior.

 

He was interviewed in the last issue of Scientific American about his "controversial" middlepoint view in the climate change debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. Not only does it provide a perfectly plausible explanation for the tiny addition, it offers the option of ignoring the addition for those who wish to do so.

It's the perfectly plausible explanation that is being questioned. The research center is giving the data with and without the addition just because it is controversial. :shrug:

 

Would you consider Richard A. Muller to be a trustworthy scientists?

 

I think he's the level headed voice in this extremely polarized debate. He believes global climate change is happening. He also believes humans can be blamed for some, most, or all of it. But he also believes (based on the research he presented to the government some years ago) that the pro camp is bolstering the claims and data. The pro group is just a little bit overzealous about how big the climate change is.

 

But, as usual, things will be exaggerated for and against a position, and the middle ground is always trampled in the stampede of the ensuing battle.

 

 

Yes, I consider him trustworthy.

 

Here, though, and let's try to keep the focus on this particular case, the addition is so very tiny I don't see what the fuss is about. It amounts to about an inch in one hundred years. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it speaks out on environmental issues, The Heartland Institute inspires the same confidence in me that The Discovery Institute does when it speaks out about evolution.

Muller works here: http://www.lbl.gov/ as a faculty senior.

 

He was interviewed in the last issue of Scientific American about his "controversial" middlepoint view in the climate change debate.

 

 

The comment of mine you quote has nothing to do with Muller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pro group is just a little bit overzealous about how big the climate change is.

Why?

Buy June 2011 issue of Scientific American, pg 84.

 

I think some scientists are fudging the numbers based on confirmation bias. I believe global climate change is happening, but I also believe there are human errors made because people are taking ideological camps. But the errors can only be fixed if people are honest and willing to accept that the truth is not 100,000 mph in only one or the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, though, and let's try to keep the focus on this particular case, the addition is so very tiny I don't see what the fuss is about. It amounts to about an inch in one hundred years. :shrug:

Yes, but it's a matter of principle.

 

Regardless of global warming, fudging numbers based on viewpoint will only fuel to the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comment of mine you quote has nothing to do with Muller.

Good.

 

I still recommend getting hold on Muller's interview in SA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Hans, but that question was intended to be more like this...

 

Why do some people WANT global warming to be true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I swear I don't know how people who are not climatologists themselves can decide between the two religious positions. Both sides lie and/or exaggerate apparently because they need to in order to make their point. Both sides have huge business interests that will benefit from "their" scientists being believed.

 

Seriously, I'd like to know how any of you decided which article of faith is the right one - and please don't say the majority of scientists say this or that. The majority of mainstream scientists believed that the first atomic bomb detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up. The majority of Americans believe Christmas celebrates the virgin birth of a man-god who died and rose from the grave. How does one pick the correct climate "religion" when corporate interests are taking turns stacking the deck?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I don't know how people who are not climatologists themselves can decide between the two religious positions. Both sides lie and/or exaggerate apparently because they need to in order to make their point. Both sides have huge business interests that will benefit from "their" scientists being believed.

 

Seriously, I'd like to know how any of you decided which article of faith is the right one - and please don't say the majority of scientists say this or that. The majority of mainstream scientists believed that the first atomic bomb detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up. The majority of Americans believe Christmas celebrates the virgin birth of a man-god who died and rose from the grave. How does one pick the correct climate "religion" when corporate interests are taking turns stacking the deck?

Exactly. The science has been compromised, and I don't know of a way to restore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Hans, but that question was intended to be more like this...

 

Why do some people WANT global warming to be true?

I don't know.

 

Personally, I don't believe global warming is true because I just want to believe it to be true. I believe it's true because there are many things that point to it to be true. And I could of course be wrong. But I also believe there is (or was) a hype. Mass hysteria is a common phenomenon with humans. We have some kind of herd behavior. When an idea becomes mainstream, it is stuck for a while and the majority runs with the idea. When they get opposition, perhaps the ego is bruised and they have to prove it to be true, and exaggerate the evidence.

 

But I do also believe that these hypes only stick around for a while. 10 years from now, the global climate change science will look different than it does now.

 

I also believe we will discover that there's more to the picture than just anthropogenic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I don't know how people who are not climatologists themselves can decide between the two religious positions. Both sides lie and/or exaggerate apparently because they need to in order to make their point. Both sides have huge business interests that will benefit from "their" scientists being believed.

 

Seriously, I'd like to know how any of you decided which article of faith is the right one - and please don't say the majority of scientists say this or that. The majority of mainstream scientists believed that the first atomic bomb detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up. The majority of Americans believe Christmas celebrates the virgin birth of a man-god who died and rose from the grave. How does one pick the correct climate "religion" when corporate interests are taking turns stacking the deck?

Exactly right.

 

I think that some sciences has become too much politics and not enough honesty. The medical industry has been the shadows of the same politically influenced science for a while (and monetary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The science has been compromised, and I don't know of a way to restore it.

By demanding honesty. But we won't get it, because it's politics and/or money driving both camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I don't know how people who are not climatologists themselves can decide between the two religious positions. Both sides lie and/or exaggerate apparently because they need to in order to make their point. Both sides have huge business interests that will benefit from "their" scientists being believed.

 

Seriously, I'd like to know how any of you decided which article of faith is the right one - and please don't say the majority of scientists say this or that. The majority of mainstream scientists believed that the first atomic bomb detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up. The majority of Americans believe Christmas celebrates the virgin birth of a man-god who died and rose from the grave. How does one pick the correct climate "religion" when corporate interests are taking turns stacking the deck?

 

I agree with many of your points, but I also believe you are creating a false dichotomy here. I'm probably pretty close to the Hans camp here (my brother from another mother). I studied this a bit 16 or 17 years ago when it was far from being a hot button issue and even back then there was a consensus that carbon-based emissions were creating a greenhouse effect.

 

I agree there is a lot of disinfo and money to be made/lost on both sides of the debate. How I see it, roughly speaking, is the fossil fuel corps are fueling (sorry) controversy, while other corps are taking the other side of the debate and looking for both government funding and buyers of "green-friendly" products. At the end of the day, one group is skewing the data and the other group is taking the data and extrapolating something from it that probably just isn't there. And, yet, it is still pretty clear that there is global climate change going on and it's not something we can just shrug off using ad homs, and most importantly, we can't necessarily trust the media's interpretation of the studies and findings due to the bias you raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I agree with many of your points, but I also believe you are creating a false dichotomy here.

I don't see the false dichotomy. In reality, there may be many nuances and possibilities, but I'm specifically looking at the either/or argument. One side says A, one side says B. I'm wondering how many people are able to choose between A and B and then defend their position as if they had absolute certainty of proof. Interestingly, their choice of A or B always aligns with political leanings, which alerts me to the likelihood there may be a great deal of confirmation bias at work.

 

And, yet, it is still pretty clear that there is global climate change going on...

Well, if it's so clear why are we (and damn near everyone else) even discussing the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the false dichotomy. In reality, there may be many nuances and possibilities,

 

That we have to pick sides or the picture is too muddled to reasonably do so.

 

Science, IMO, stands outside this equation. So, the dichotomy is, either we accept the fact that there is a world-wide conspiracy of sorts, which means that the entire scientific method is fatally flawed (Paradox, stage left), or if not, that we cannot know whether it is or not, or, we simply pick sides or again, exit dichotomy, we understand that just because there are two competing biases that the science may in fact be right for the same reason we accept the science on other theories. Keep in mind, that the science doesn't likely agree entirely or even in part with either side of the political debate.

 

Well, if it's so clear why are we (and damn near everyone else) even discussing the subject?

 

Because it's politically charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.