/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8656869
>Dr Curry debunks the "debunkers"
Did you actually read it? Dr. Curry's conclusions are basically that there was no scientific malfeasance or dishonesty, but she still thinks the scientists should be extra special careful with what they release because it involves regulation of industry. (This is because she's an actual skeptic, not a contrarian fuckwit.)
Also, she complains about the Daily Mail being called a worthless rag or something (it is a worthless rag with a long history of slanted and unreliable reporting) and she talks about the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology as if it's actually interested in listening to science (as opposed to its usual business of harassing climatologists).

>Can the high ranked egghead in science take jokes?
given that the spikes on the tails of stegosaurids are called "thagomizers", a growing number of physicists refer to the Big Bang as the "Horrendous Space Kablooie", and there was recently a (failed) push to make hella- the SI prefix for 10^27, I'd have to say maybe?

>>8004942
>Look closely, that's UAH and RSS satellite temp data; its right on the image
Nothing in that image is legible. Maybe you meant to post a larger version of the image, but it's just a blurry line on some unintelligible axes as posted.
>That's a plot of NOAA USHCN data raw (blue) and "corrected" (red)
But nothing in the images gives any indication as to which is which or where either of those data series came from, other than that the NOAA was involved.
> >>8002494 Fig. 12 from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
It literally isn't. You're thinking of this graph: >>8002486 (not that it was sourced in your post either)
Nice evasion. HURR DURR MAYBE IF I GIVE THE SOURCE FOR A DIFFERENT GRAPH HE WON'T NOTICE.
>The infamous "hide the decline" data in red.
Ah yes, because saying "hide the decline" is source enough for anyone.
>The temperature data are standard Hadley CRU which can be obtained at woodfortrees.org. The anthropogenic CO2 is easily obtained.
In other words, "I don't need to give sources for my graph, YOU go find the data"
>Evidence for the pre-tampered data
Two graphs of two different things being measured, neither of them labeled, and all of it shrunk down to blurriness.

So instead of providing a link to the actual data in most cases, you point me towards a website or agency and say "it's in there, go find it". That's not how science (or debate for that matter) works; it's not MY job to go find supporting evidence for YOUR whackadoodle claims.
More importantly, I didn't ask for the source; I asked you to show me where on those graphs they were sourced. (They're not!) For a figure to be sourced, it doesn't just mean that the data actually came from somewhere; it means that the figure itself (or the caption/text accompanying it) tells you where to find the data. Without that crucial sourcing, it's impossible to tell if a figure is legitimate.