MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

NOAA Climate Change Data Manipulation Charge: Scandal or Nothing to See Here?

Settled science and confirmation bias all the way down

NOAAViewNOAADid National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers rush and manipulate data back in 2015 in order to publish a high-impact study in Science disproving the notion that the rate of man-made global warming has slowed significantly after 2000? That is certainly the way that an explosive article at the Daily Mail portrayed the claims by prominent and just retired NOAA data slinger John Bates against his former (also now retired) colleague Tom Karl. Characterizing Bates as a whistleblower, the Mail reported that Bates ...

...accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of 'insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy'.

Specifically, Karl and his colleagues in their "pausebuster" 2015 study used improperly archived and vetted data on sea surface and land temperature trends that showed considerably more warming than other datasets did at the time. "The central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a 'slowdown' in the increase of global surface temperature," concluded the study.

Bates' claims have reignited the debate over just how "settled" the science of man-made climate change is. Interestingly, Energy & Environment News reports that in an interview with Bates that he expressed a "significantly more nuanced take" about what happened with the NOAA data than the one found in the Mail. According to E&E News:

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

On the other hand, it is the plain fact that Bates did assert in a his February 4 post "Climate scientists versus climate data" over at the invaluable Climate Etc. website run by climate researcher Judith Curry that Karl had put his thumb on the scale by urging colleagues to make adjustments to the temperature data that maximized warming. So what claim is Bates really making? Did Karl and colleagues purposedly manipulate the data to get the result they wanted or were they just irresponsibly sloppy and less transparent than they should have been about what they had done? Or is Bates saying he thinks that the sloppiness and lack of transparency was deliberately used to hide data manipulation?

All too predictably, this contretemps has most everyone rushing to find data that confirms what they already think. "No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say," headlines The New York Times. "As planet warms, doubters launch a new attack on famous climate change study," reports The Washington Post. "House Committee to 'Push Ahead' With Investigation Into Alleged Climate Data Manipulation at NOAA," reports The Daily Caller, citing claims from Committee on Science, Space and Technology aides that other unnamed NOAA whistleblowers are coming forward. Fox News headlines, "Federal scientist cooked the climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges."

Defenders of Karl's 2015 NOAA article rightly point to an independent Science Advances study just published in January that basically concluded that the study's temperature adjustments were properly done and that the increase in sea surface temperatures had not slowed down after 2000.

That being said, it is a bit puzzling that the Science Advances study does not cite another prominent study from Nature Climate Change published in February 2016 in which a group of researchers led by Canadian climate scientist John Fyfe concluded that global warming hiatus is real. Bates does cite the 2016 Nature Climate Change study as evidence against the findings reported by Karl and his colleagues in 2015. Clearly, the Nature Climate Change study's conclusions strongly contradicted Karl's 2015 Science article and the new results reported in Science Advances. Interestingly, neither the Times nor the Post stories mention the Nature Climate Change study, but Fox News did.

Apparently, NOAA is considering an investigation into Bates' allegations and House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Chair Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) is renewing his demand that NOAA turn over emails related to the how the 2015 study was managed.

For those who want to wade further into charges and counter-charges click on over to Climate, Etc. where Bates is responding to various critics' claims.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Did Karl and colleagues purposedly manipulate the data to get the result they wanted or were they just irresponsibly sloppy and less transparent than they should have been about what they had done?

    Or were they just providing assistance to their political allies?

  • AlexInCT||

    ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

  • ||

    Doesn't the fact that they were "less transparent than they should have been" imply their guilt? Especially since they continue to stonewall FOIA requests and congressional subpoenas which would give them an opportunity to set the record straight on their processes.

    Sorry, but it's a weak excuse to say "we didn't manipulate anything but we refuse to sit down under oath or release the raw data that would support our position."

  • commodious rebrands||

    If they have nothing to worry about, they have nothing to hide.

  • ||

    When it comes to a taxpayer-funded group, then absolutely. They shouldn't enjoy the right to just clam up on subpoenas like a private citizen should.

    If they are paid by my tax dollars and they are summoned to answer questions by the group properly tasked with oversight, they should answer or be tossed in jail on contempt until they comply.

    Same process should apply when they don't answer FOIA requests in a timely and thorough manner.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Heretic, nonbeliever, apostate! There is a consensus, damn it, and you have no reason to question the high priests who have repeatedly preached apocalyptic predictions that have never come to fruition, have tried to blackball dissenters from journals rather than engage them with facts, who refuse to provide access to raw data, and whose models must remain in the black box because mere mortal eyes cannot handle the sight of them.

    /NESS

  • Number.6||

    +1 Priests of the temples of Syrinx

  • american socialist||

    This needs to die already. Nothing will be done except for lining the pockets of green cronies. It is moronic to think the government (look at their track record) can control the climate.

    It is a dog and pony show to extract money from honest citizens

    And how in the heck is any data say pre-1980 reliable. How does one just make an adjustment which is based on a judgement of data that wasn't collected the same way as now with same equipment

  • Poppa Kilo||

    I've often wondered if I'm the only person in the country who is not a skilled climate scientist.

    I mean, everyone has such strong opinions, they must be based on training and experience, right?

    Maybe it was covered in school that week I was out sick.

    Never showed up on the finals, though.

  • Number.6||

    You don't need to be a skilled climate scientist; all you need to do is understand (even in an informal sense) the issue of data quality, and that's not an awfully rare skill set.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    You mean when you find out people have been cherry-picking data, and destroying source data sets, and applying arbitrary changes with (really) bad computer code, you might have enough information to be skeptical?

    DENIER! And you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

  • Number.6||

    Does that put me on the HihnList yet?

  • Volren||

    I don't know. Has he ruled on the True Libertarian Position on climate change?

  • ||

    I've often wondered if I'm the only person in the country who is not a skilled climate scientist.

    Do you lie awake at night wondering if you have opinions that invalidate themselves?

    What if other people and even whole belief systems held self-invalidating ideas, would that invalidate those people and their civilizations?

    I know the answer, but if I told you, it wouldn't be valid any longer.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    I do. It's like you know me.

    I also wonder if God can make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it.

    But that does not keep me up nights, so there's that.

  • The Last American Hero||

    You don't need to be a skilled climate scientist; all you need to do is pick a goddamn team already and your narrative will be provided.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Thanks - that will be a time saver for me.

    Any suggestions on a team, or should I go with the ones where the jersey color sets off my eyes?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    We didn't believe the tobacco scientists because their conclusions didn't match observations well and it was obvious they were benefiting from the outcome of their studies.

    Substitute climate for tobacco in the above sentence and see if it doesn't seem equally true.

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Another good article, Ron. It looks like in my opinion that climate change data has been cooked to produce the results they needed. They are a disgrace to the scientific method.

  • AlexInCT||

    I have found that the people most adamant in making the case for AGW tend to be the ones with the least of scientific or engineering background, with a few exceptions of scoundrels with an agenda, and thus, the ones with the least respect for or understanding of the scientific process.

    The one scientific conclusion you can draw from the whole AGW fiasco is that these people don't have a fucking clue what is going on, and the ones claiming they do the loudest really only are making the data conform to an agenda. It is also telling that despite the cries of impending Armageddon, the solution these morons want never involves anything technical (like nuclear power which is 100% carbon free), and always some oppressive wealth redistribution scheme (including that green energy shit they push which will never be viable as anything but marginal).

    To me, as someone with an engineering background, once you made predictions and produced models that didn't bear out under scrutiny, the right behavior wouldn't have been to accuse those calling the dubious crap you are doing into question as deniers, but you going back to the drawing board to redo/rethink your system. If you have a case to make (if there is one for a scientific premise, which by now is blatant there is not), you make it by producing results that match what you are claiming. Not the idiotic concept of scientific consensus.

    Know what I am saying?

  • american socialist||

    You mean like tony

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Yes, I do. Now to convince them that don't want to be proven wrong because their bank accounts are at risk.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This seems quite a lot like what I'd call unsettled science. To the extent that one should ever call science settled. Crap, we still can't fully explain gravity. No wonder aliens eschew Earth.

  • sarcasmic||

    Science is never settled, by definition. "Settled science" is just another leftist means to define something as its opposite. Like "social justice" (which is actually institutionalized injustice) and the like.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Science is never settled, by definition.

    Which definition are you referring to?

    "Settled" is a vague term, admittedly, but when a falsifiable hypothesis has been tested in every imaginable way and has never been disproved, it's for all intents and purposes "settled".

  • sarcasmic||

    When the left uses the term "settled science" they mean that any possible disagreement is akin to denying the holocaust, and should be treated as a criminal act akin to murder.

  • ||

    Which definition are you referring to?

    I think he was referring to the doublethink aspect of it itself. Along the lines of what Stroustrup said about programming languages;

    There are two kinds of science. The science that everybody talks/complains about and the science that nobody uses.

    Climate Science is a few (thousand) more journal articles away from being settled science the way phrenology is a settled science.

  • The Last American Hero||

    There is a third kind. The kind that people fucking love.

  • BigW||

    Newtons laws of motion were settled for hundreds of years before they were invalidated for objects moving very very fast and for objects that are very very small.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Science has nothing to do with explanations, only observations.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think this was discussed last week or something, so I don't claim credit, but has anyone noticed that anything with the word "science" in it is probably not science?

    Computer science, political science, environmental science.... all bullshit.

    Physics science, chemistry science, zoology science... oh, wait. Don't need to call them "science" because they actually are science.

  • RAHeinlein||

    When one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals publishes a technical article penned (allegedly) by Obama, they should have they shouldn't use the term science either.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Well this is what the left does. They infiltrate organizations that have built up a good reputation for honesty and objectivity over decades or centuries, use it to spew their propaganda, and when they have utterly destroyed its reputation, move on to the next one.

  • Rhywun||

    a technical article penned (allegedly) by Obama

    LOL forgot about that. They really have no shame.

  • commodious rebrands||

    I don't remember that. What was the subject?

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    "Dear Colleague,"

  • Number.6||

    "Look upon my works, yokels, and despair"

  • RAHeinlein||

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-10

    Another first for America's greatest leader...

  • Raston Bot||

    I read somewhere long long ago that political science used to be called political economics.

  • kevrob||

    PoliSci is aka "political economy" or even just "politics."

    I have a PoliSci degree, and, outside of public opinion polling, there's not much "scientific" about it. There's taxonomy, sure. Political scientists, like historians, record and describe things as they are (or were,) but using the word "science" has the flavor of what Austrian school, economists call "physics envy:" the idea that all human behavior can be reduced to mathematical terms. Mises

    Political Philosophy still exits as a subset of PoliSci. It would have just been called "Politics," a subset of Ethics in a schema of Philosophy. What we know call "science" would have been "natural philosophy" in such a schema.

    "Computer science" is OK, as it combinces Latin roots. Computerology would be clumsy, combining
    both Latin and greek (Television does this, because Telescope was taken.)

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Also works with the word 'studies'.

    As in, if it has the word 'studies' in it, you don't need to study it.

  • Ron||

    "NOAA is considering an investigation into Bates' allegations" more than likely they will investigate Bates the whistle blower instead of the actual allegations which would be typical of government entities.

  • ||

    The notion that a nominally scientific body has or will adopt an investigative division is rather meta-doublethink in-and-of itself. Like the CBO launching an investigation into whether it cooked the books.

  • AlexInCT||

    Agreed... Their agenda is far more likely to involve retaliation against the "deniers"...

  • Raston Bot||

    i'm going to mention both studies and admit i don't know what to think because both sides to this argument seem credible.

  • Rhywun||

    At this point who the hell knows, but don't let that stop us from empooring the world back to the stone age.

  • Shirley Knott||

    As at least implied above, and in the article, the question really isn't about whether global warming is happening or not.
    It isn't about whether global warming, if it is happening, is substantially caused by human beings.
    The question is whether it is reasonable, appropriate, plausible, possible, or desirable to take political steps to address the issue.
    That is the question that we all should be focusing on. The questions being mooted about have nothing to do with whether the earth is warming. They have to do with establishing the narrative that any large-scale change simply must be met by some sort of government action. That premise remains unquestioned and unopposed.
    And that's just wrong.

  • AlexInCT||

    "As at least implied above, and in the article, the question really isn't about whether global warming is happening or not.
    It isn't about whether global warming, if it is happening, is substantially caused by human beings.
    "

    I disagree. The first is a given. The universe is not static and things warm and cool. Hell, someday this planet will be baked by the sun going nova. Once that is over, I bet, if anything is left, it will be a frozen hell.

    The second item is the problem. People with an agenda are using hocus-pocus crap to make an argument that requires precision of measurements we simply reached some 20 or 30 years ago (which in the cosmic scale at which this stuff is measured is insignificant an amount of time), and ignores margins of error that simply invalidate any of these measurements. If you give them this, or tell them you are not going to contest it, they will accuse you of being a denier, and we end where we are today.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Did Karl and colleagues purposedly manipulate the data to get the result they wanted or were they just irresponsibly sloppy and less transparent than they should have been about what they had done? Or is Bates saying he thinks that the sloppiness and lack of transparency was deliberately used to hide data manipulation?

    If any of these things are true it should permanently discredit their research and forever bar them from working for respectable research groups.

    And needless to say, not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards funding what is obviously political advocacy with a scientific façade.

  • ||

    God, reading about climate change is more exhausting than rape...erm I mean sex.

  • Voros McCracken||

    Why are they "making adjustments" instead of just analyzing the raw data while adding variables to the mix? What were the "biases" in the data?

    Either the temps are going up or they're going down, how the hell do you have two different studies saying opposite things?

    Nolan Arenado hit 41 homers last year. Period. Now we can use additional data to argue about what affect his home park had on that total, but the number itself is what it is. Why is this not the case with temperatures?

  • Number.6||

    It's legitimate to apply corrections and qualifications to data in *some* cases, but the issue is that in doing so, a heightened level of scrutiny is more than justified.

    Earth station sampling is subject to a whole bunch of inherent errors anyway, then by 'correcting' the data the error bars are very likely to expand, to the point where whatever statistical analysis you apply to the dataset renders it less reliable, even if the 'corrections' applied are entirely based upon objective (settled?) methodologies.

    To obfuscate calculations and stonewall efforts to audit the statistics and correction methodologies is the very antithesis of 'science', which is reason enough to (a) doubt the data (b) doubt the scientists and (c) demand that if these fucks expect us to bankrupt ourselves to save Gaia, their fucking research methodology needs to be beyond reproach.

  • Voros McCracken||

    Right, but it seems to me these "corrections" should just be treated as variables unless the actual measurement or recording of the measurement was faulty. The temperature itself should remain what it was.

    Because it getting hotter or cooler isn't the issue, it's understanding how different variables cause things to become hotter or cooler that's at issue. Seems like the focus right now is on the former and not the latter, and that's just bass ackwards.

  • Number.6||

    The corrections are applied on distinct data sets to homogenize the samples, or as weightings, allowing one sequence of data to (allegedly) have more impact in the mean calculations. I've been out of the subject for some time, but the overall sophistication of the process was pretty awful in the early 90's, and I have no reason (and have seen little evidence) that it's improved.

    The 'correct' path would be understanding all the variables and how they interact to create warming and cooling, but it's a sufficiently complex multivariate problem that it's understandable that the emphasis is on creating models that, with refinement, yield projections which have some limited predictive value.

    And that's the second problem. None of the models currently being upheld could even curve fit historical data, at least, not until the base data is so utterly tortured that the homogenized data looks nothing like the raw data. Which is why raw data is being destroyed as we speak.

  • Voros McCracken||

    I guess my problem is with the word "corrections," it seems somewhat Orwellian. Like the actual raw data is "wrong" and needs to be fixed. It would be akin to me saying that Arenado actually only hit 33 home runs after correcting for the "wrong" total of 41.

    IE, I think words matter here.

  • Number.6||

    "Corrections" is probably less triggering than any of the alternative terms that could be applied.

    To be generous, you're dealing with a system that is huge, complex, and for which you have to design your sampling methodology to minimize the impact of an unavoidable limitation - that your sampling is sparse and is going to be discontinuous. When you consider your sampling locations, they have varying levels of precision and accuracy - in some cases based on the personnel, and in others on equipment that may not have been calibrated properly in the first case. That kind of 'correction' may be justified - but I'd want a really solid empirical justification for doing so.

    That being said, (sigh), you also have dataset bias. HADCRU's dataset is well-known to have been a subset of the US Terrestrial GHCN/CAMS dataset, based upon those sample stations that were near urban areas. the justification was that the sampling density is higher, and the methodology more likely to be consistent. The heat well effect is (usually) simply waved away for the raw data, and alleged to have been 'accounted for' in the corrected data.

  • Number.6||

    For those who are (still) interested, there's a good summation and discussion here.

    We've moved on somewhat since then, and HADCRU at least has *some* raw data records, unlike much of the other UEA CRU material, but really, anything those guys do should be subject to the greatest possible scrutiny until the whole department and all academics associated to 6 degrees of separation, have been subject to cleansing by fire.

    If it sounds like I have an ax to grind, I do.

  • Hal_10000||

    The temps are going up no matter what you do. The corrections are attempts to adjust the data for known (and sometimes) unknown instrumental effects. All they do is make the line smoother (or slightly reduce the amount of global warming measured).

    Your Arenado comparison doesn't quite work because we know how many homers he hit. That would be the modern temperature tdata. This would be more akin to trying to puzzle out incomplete 19th century hitting data or Negro Leagues records, although that analogy is a bit stretched.

  • Jerryskids||

    "NOAA data slinger John Bates" = "not real scientist". This should be obvious from the known fact that 98.2% of all real scientists agree with the CAGCC theory that Mother Earth has been driven mad by the infestation of human beings riddling her carcass, she's really pissed, she's out for revenge, and only the sacrifice of a few billion human beings plus all the worldly possessions of the rest of them can satiate her bloodlust. And stop eating the damn sugar! Mother Earth's really pissed about that, too.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This seems quite a lot like what I'd call unsettled science. To the extent that one should ever call science settled.

    THEY VOTED. Consensus confirmed. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

    Science 1 , Us 0

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sadly, reality refuses to accept votes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Nolan Arenado hit 41 homers last year. Period.

    Yeah, but- based on the coriolis effect, as it manifests itself in certain ballparks, he "should have"hit an additional 6. So we'll just adjust his total.

    See how easy it is?

  • DaveSs||

    Dont forget to adjust for wind direction, different ball parks having different distances to the fence, and whether the home runs were to left, right, or center

  • Sandusky's Kids||

    I just do stuff at the local level. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I always tell my environmentally conscious friends, change starts with you. Why wait for the government to take action? They always respond with something about "it's the only way to stop oil companies" I don't know how to counter act that other than to say 'be energy independent as much as you can" What else can you say to these people?

    Nobody wants to listen to ol' Sandusky

  • american socialist||

    Basically they want credit but not to have to actually do anything

  • DesigNate||

    List out everything in their life that uses dirty oil and tell them to mind their own business?

  • Tony||

    If the Daily Mail and Judith Curry say it, it must be true. Never were there better sources for climate science reporting than those two.

  • american socialist||

    Judith curry is a climate scientist is she not. Didnt you stipulate only climate scientists can have a say?

    But you the non climate scientist criticizes her. Hmm sounds like for you it is religious dogma

  • Tony||

    Why do you trust Judith Curry but not any of the other thousands of climate scientists who don't agree with her?

    Are you some kind of fucking moron, maybe?

  • notJoe||

    Whelp, close the thread. Reason's racist Gaia - worshiper has weighed in.

    The "sources" are Bates, not Judith Curry. Typical Tony-level sophistry.

  • True Scottsman||

    If they keep adjusting the historical temperatures like this, pretty soon we are all going to have never existed because of the ice age that happened for all of human history.

  • John||

    On the other hand, it is the plain fact that Bates did assert in a his February 4 post "Climate scientists versus climate data" over at the invaluable Climate Etc. website run by climate researcher Judith Curry that Karl had put his thumb on the scale by urging colleagues to make adjustments to the temperature data that maximized warming. So what claim is Bates really making? Did Karl and colleagues purposedly manipulate the data to get the result they wanted or were they just irresponsibly sloppy and less transparent than they should have been about what they had done? Or is Bates saying he thinks that the sloppiness and lack of transparency was deliberately used to hide data manipulation?

    There are two questions that need to be asked; who has the motivation to lie and does the previous record of the parties in question give one a reason to give or not give the benefit of the doubt.

    As far as motivation to lie, the climate scientists have every motivation to lie and make the temperatures look higher than they are. If AGW is ever fully discredited, climate science will go back to being a backwater field and the billions of dollars gushing into it will stop. And the careers of those who support it will be effectively over. So, they absolutely have a motive to lie. And they have a history of lying and manipulating data and thus do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

  • DesigNate||

    I just need to get this off my chest:

    Fuck the goddamn climate cult.

    You motherfuckers are actively working with the government to make it harder and harder to design and build buildings. There is no fucking reason that a building should pass the code by 2% using 2012 standards and fail by 220% using 2015 standards!!!!!

    End rant. And now I wil rtfa.

  • John||

    Even if you believe this horseshit, they have never even tried to present a feasible way to solve the problem. If the only solution you offer to your alleged "crisis" amounts to government enforced poverty and deprivation, I will take my chances with your "crisis" and you can go fuck yourself and get back with me when you have an actual solution.

  • Sandusky's Kids||

    Full disclosure I used to be into the prog side of it hardcore. It's all fear, no solutions other than the government needs to step in to do something. It's garbage.

  • DesigNate||

    I'm trying to finish up documentation for a used car building for my client. It looks like he drug his feet so long that the city adopted these new 2015 codes.

    Big businesses and such can probably eat the cost of all the extra insulation that is now required, but small business owners and working class guys just trying to get ahead are actively getting fucked by the regulations. Of course that's par for the course with all of this.

    It's just so fucking frustrating, especially when all I did was literally change the code in the program (supplied by the DoE, naturally) from 12 to 15.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You motherfuckers are actively working with the government to make it harder and harder to design and build buildings. There is no fucking reason that a building should pass the code by 2% using 2012 standards and fail by 220% using 2015 standards!!!!!

    These are, of course, the same people who moan about the lack of affordable housing.

  • DesigNate||

    And gloat about how they are "for the little guy, the immigrant, the minority trying make a better life for their family."

    What a load of horseshit.

  • Hal_10000||

    Bates, BTW, is saying that there was no data manipulation. That now appears to have been invented by Rose.

  • Ron Bailey||

    H: Bates "no data manipulation" - as noted in my article above.

  • Bra Ket||

    Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

    My guess would be that the first story is what he really thinks and the later stuff is him trying to be more diplomatic in the face of a hell of a lot more attention he might have expected to get. Manipulating data is pretty taboo, while cherry picking or imposing other forms of bias can effectively be just as bad, they aren't as severe an accusation.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    When you are trying to disprove your theory, you are doing science.

    When you are looking for anything to shore up your theory, you are doing religion.

  • BigW||

    If the answer to Global Warming....err Climate Changes is ALWAYS, massive global implementation of Socialism, why the hell would you expect progressives to come up with anything but studies that confirm it?

    As it happens, when the "pause buster" paper was released many skeptics questioned the sea temperature data, claiming that it had been wrongly manipulated.

    Now a whistleblower has indicated that it was.

    Once again, just like the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, something was developed to perfectly represent the Narrative. Almost too perfectly represent it.

    And people are Surprised the data may have been manipulated??!!

  • kevrob||

    Anyone ever read After Communism by Robert Heilbroner?

    Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment. - The New Yorker, September 10, 1990 P. 91

    IOW, using environmentalism to sneak a planned economy back in after it failed so massively. The watermelon strategy. Green on the outside...

    When this was figured out nearly 30 years ago, of course non-socialists are going to be suspicious of anybody employing "the fudge factor" too often.

  • kevrob||

    New Yorker has a link:

    http://www.newyorker.com/magaz.....-communism

    Kevin R

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online