Thread: Something to ponder

Sorry, what's the implied agenda?

Originally Posted by Stuart02

Sorry, what's the implied agenda?

Dunno. Do you believe that the BOM should be talking up "climate Change" and at the same time be manipulating data?? If you do, then look the other way.

By rounding up temperature instead of keeping it as-is, it skews/falsifies the data to be 'warmer' than it actually is. I'll let you connect the dots about what 'warming' phenomena he could be referring to.....

Similar things are happening in other research fields. Check out Ben Goldacre in his TED talk.

Ben Goldacre: Battling bad science | TED Talk

or when they disregard data when it doesnt fit their model.

Originally Posted by cripesamighty

By rounding up temperature instead of keeping it as-is, it skews/falsifies the data to be 'warmer' than it actually is. I'll let you connect the dots about what 'warming' phenomena he could be referring to.....

Similar things are happening in other research fields. Check out Ben Goldacre in his TED talk.

Ben Goldacre: Battling bad science | TED Talk

Funny how it's OK to manipulate the data when it suits your agenda, ain't it? Mr Mann's "hockey stick" is still quoted by the desperate, even now, when it and Gore's ridiculous film that quoted it to such effect have been SO discredited as to be a laughing stock.

I thank you for that link to Ben's presentation. One of the very first points he makes is about the "peer review" process, and the "scientific method". It amazes me that when we get in to "debates" about climate change the believers all quote and champion the first, and totally ignore the second. Any one really interested in answers would approach it the other way around. Peer review can be "bought". Scientific Method cannot.
Anyone with any intellect at all can find out what the "scientific method" is, so there is no point repeating it here, because they can either go and look or they don't have the wit to do so. I'll leave you to guess who is who.

It happens in other fields too, where the data gets manipulated to fit the model.

I have a lot of experience with fisheries models for a particular species (non trawl) and have spent a lot of time back in the day helping the modellers getting their outputs looking something like reality, both historic and current, let alone future.

From my experience, it is incorrect to assume that data manipulation is always deliberate. Most times it isn't but just some form of standardisation to make the model more 'accurate' and hence useful, as taught in university by someone with no experience in the real world.

The real problems arise when the model parameters and standardisation of data inputs create outputs that can't even come close to predicting what has been actually been observed in the past (by running these models backwards, normal as a check) and they are still being used to somehow predict the future!

cheers, DL

Sure. Statistics and conspiracies aside, I'm wondering what does the BOM have to gain by being anything other than objective?
And as a side note, "Global Warming" is a terrible name for the greenhouse effect because it doesn't actually mean everything everywhere simply gets warmer. So trimming a low outlier means nothing more than trimming a high one

The old expression follow the money...look behind the organisation etc. I have my doubts, but I could be wrong. Without spending hours on this quoted site - author? seems to have been working for the Institute of Public Affairs since 2015 (see About this site) - if its the same organisation wikipedia indicates the IPA is funded/donored by ExxonMobil, Western Mining, Caltex, Shell, et al, including best of all British American Tobacco (no cancer here).

Do I still trust BOM? Generally yes. Analysis of global climate is really in the hands of the countries with bigger science expenditure such as the US, China, Europe.