It is currently September 23rd, 2017, 8:18 pm

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 2:25 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
The story already has picked up a huge amount of coverage--

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -manipula/

Climate Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data to Fool Politicians and Public, Claims 'Whistleblower'
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/clima ... -temperatu

Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... onference/

Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa- ... z4Xwk8FP7T

Just a few of at least 28 googled sources
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl= ... AQqgIIJjAA


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 2:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Yeah I know. Crap info does that on other crap sources.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 3:30 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
The gist of what you're saying is a logical fallacy--

"This story cannot be true because it was not reported by the mainstream media."

BTW many of those sites exist because the biased, mainstream media often doesn't like to cover things that could threaten their belief system.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 3:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Yeah Right wrote:
The gist of what you're saying is a logical fallacy--

"This story cannot be true because it was not reported by the mainstream media."

BTW many of those sites exist because the biased, mainstream media often doesn't like to cover things that could threaten their belief system.

I didn't say the story can't be true. The likelihood of it not being true is much higher when you can only find it in tabloids and such.

Many of those sites exist because there's money to be made spreading doubt.

There are so many global news source and ones with opposite biases that they can't all be threatened in the same way.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 4:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 6589
Here is an excerpt of what Dr John Bates wrote on Dr Judith Curry's climate blog. Dr. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

I was dumbstruck that Tom Karl, the NCEI Director in charge of NOAA’s climate data archive, would not follow the policy of his own Agency nor the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation.

I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/clim ... /#comments

Dr John Bates is not the first climate scientist to question the Karl study.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 5:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
And I hope he isn't the last. Science is all about questioning.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 5:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 8:21 pm
Posts: 7984
Those who do not read Mainstream Media news are "uninformed"

Those who do read Mainstream Media news are "misinformed"

_________________
So WHY would we deliberately bring in an inherently violent / supremacist / misogynist / counter-to-democracy IDEOLOGY .... only to then have to monitor its devout followers 24/7/365? :crazy:
Someone, anyone, remind me WHY we would do that.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 5:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
cc wrote:
Those who do not read Mainstream Media news are "uninformed"

Those who do read Mainstream Media news are "misinformed"

Thanks Denzel. ac_biggrin

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 7:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 8425
seoulbro wrote:
Here is an excerpt of what Dr John Bates wrote on Dr Judith Curry's climate blog. Dr. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

I was dumbstruck that Tom Karl, the NCEI Director in charge of NOAA’s climate data archive, would not follow the policy of his own Agency nor the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation.

I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/clim ... /#comments

Dr John Bates is not the first climate scientist to question the Karl study.

Watch the alarmists discredit him and his credentials.

_________________
prairie redneck


Top
Unread postPosted: February 7th, 2017, 1:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 6589
The NOAA has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena on their suspicious pausebuster paper.
Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 1b01c98215

The US House of Representatives committee on science, space and technology called an investigation into the paper and heard from scientists who had “raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and ­politicisation”. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent the NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

The NOAA refused to comply, saying congress was not authorised to request communications from federal scientists. This led to a con­gressional subpoena, with which it also failed to comply.

Its “pausebuster” paper was based on two new temperature sets of data — one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.


Here's how Dr Tom Karl reversed the global warming pause.
Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ience-noaa

He claimed to have developed a way to raise sea-temperature readings that had been collected by buoys: He would adjust them by using higher temperature readings of sea water collected by ships. “In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,” said one of the study’s co-authors.


It's not the first time either that NASA/NOAA that used inaccurate data that overstated warming.
Quote:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... a-scandal/

In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.


And Dr Karl put out his pause buster paper with improperly archived data sets just ahead of the Paris climate conference. Just like the first climategate ahead of the Copenhagen conference.
Quote:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andre ... ca453b4d54

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
Unread postPosted: February 7th, 2017, 5:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 3306
seoulbro wrote:
The NOAA has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena on their suspicious pausebuster paper.
Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 1b01c98215

The US House of Representatives committee on science, space and technology called an investigation into the paper and heard from scientists who had “raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and ­politicisation”. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent the NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

The NOAA refused to comply, saying congress was not authorised to request communications from federal scientists. This led to a con­gressional subpoena, with which it also failed to comply.

Its “pausebuster” paper was based on two new temperature sets of data — one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.


Here's how Dr Tom Karl reversed the global warming pause.
Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ience-noaa

He claimed to have developed a way to raise sea-temperature readings that had been collected by buoys: He would adjust them by using higher temperature readings of sea water collected by ships. “In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,” said one of the study’s co-authors.


It's not the first time either that NASA/NOAA that used inaccurate data that overstated warming.
Quote:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... a-scandal/

In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.


And Dr Karl put out his pause buster paper with improperly archived data sets just ahead of the Paris climate conference. Just like the first climategate ahead of the Copenhagen conference.
Quote:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andre ... ca453b4d54

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

If the NOAA is not going to hand over documentation under subpoena to congress, heads should roll.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 7th, 2017, 7:14 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
good post SB.

That was the thing that stuck with me most when I read about the seawater data a while back. They said they found new data from ships that was supposedly better. But the problem is they used ship collected data during the hiatus, but they used buoy collected data from before the hiatus. Basically that makes for comparing apples and oranges.

I have been suspicious ever since they erased the 15 year pause (way too convenient).

It looks to me like they deliberately cherrypicked the data in order to get the outcome they wanted. Very unscientific at best, outright fraud at worst.

Like IHJ says, there needs to be a full government investigation.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 19th, 2017, 9:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Climate fraud whistleblowers have big balls. Any scientist who puts science ahead of agenda does not have much of a career left.
Quote:
Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.

Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?

Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation.

Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data.

Whistleblowers now know they will no longer be silenced.
Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet.


None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud.

Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals.

The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... -speak-out

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 19th, 2017, 9:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Con't

The climate manipulators won't present their data to congress even under subpoena. Put their funding on hold until they do.
Quote:
Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.

In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced.

One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account.

The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media.


_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 19th, 2017, 12:06 pm 

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Posts: 441
Climate alarmists have called for the detaining of politicians who "deny" alarmism. I see they do not feel the same way about scientists who commit fraud, which is a real crime.

_________________
gay, conservative and proud


Top
Unread postPosted: February 20th, 2017, 9:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 23619
Thiel wrote:
Climate alarmists have called for the detaining of politicians who "deny" alarmism. I see they do not feel the same way about scientists who commit fraud, which is a real crime.

I would have no problem making financial sacrifices if I thought it was making a difference..

Our provincial government has admitted our additional costs will make no difference to our climate.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On | Load: 8.29 ]