NOAA and NASA have never falsified data

[Shelby86]

For fuck's sake, John Bates AGAIN? Have you got memory issues? Bates himself stated that Karl did not falsify or manipulate data.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. "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 told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. "That's where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people," he says.​

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

You fucking idiot. We went through this exact issue less than a week ago.

However one chooses to use it, Bates obviously had concerns about the specific data he refers to. Are you suggesting that his concerns have no validity?

 

[Flash]

Crock reminds me of Flat Earthers . They are so much trouble that it not worth the time and effort spending time with them . Odds are that they also believe Covid was a natural virus , the Killer Shots are vaccines and Ukraine is winning . Our favourite mutants -- the Gullibles.

LOL! Missy Crick reminds me someone that is convinced that we never landed on the Moon and no matter what the facts are she is sticking to her story.

Missy Crick is a Deaconess in the AGW scam religion.

She said that NASA and NOAA never fabricated anything. "Mababydindunutin".

Employees of NASA and NOAA said that data were fabricated.

Who has the credibility?

 

[Crick]

However one chooses to use it, Bates obviously had concerns about the specific data he refers to. Are you suggesting that his concerns have no validity?

His concern was that he thought Karl had not followed a report protocol that he (Bates) had set up at NCEI before he retired. He made clear that he was NOT accusing Karl of having falsified or manipulated the data in any way and was wary that AGW deniers would misuse his complaint. And, as we have seen here, they have.

 

[Crick]

Employees of NASA and NOAA said that data were fabricated.

What employees of NASA and NOAA said that data were fabricated? Where is your fucking link?

 

[Flash]

 

[Shelby86]

His concern was that he thought Karl had not followed a report protocol that he (Bates) had set up at NCEI before he retired. He made clear that he was NOT accusing Karl of having falsified or manipulated the data in any way and was wary that AGW deniers would misuse his complaint. And, as we have seen here, they have.

I'm aware of what he said. You're just repeating yourself and not answering the question. Are you implying that his (Bates) concerns about the data have no validity?

 

[Crick]

I'm aware of what he said. You're just repeating yourself and not answering the question. Are you implying that his (Bates) concerns about the data have no validity?

I'm attempting to correct you. Bates had no concerns about the data. His concern was about the protocol leading to the release of the report.

 

[Shelby86]

I'm attempting to correct you. Bates had no concerns about the data. His concern was about the protocol leading to the release of the report.

No correction is needed. He had concerns as it relates to the data, as you just pointed out here. The protocol you speak of obviously concerns or relates to the data itself. So here's the question, are you implying that those concerns were or are invalid?

 

[Crick]

No correction is needed. He had concerns as it relates to the data, as you just pointed out here. The protocol you speak of obviously concerns or relates to the data itself. So here's the question, are you implying that those concerns were or are invalid?

I am saying, again, that you are incorrect. Bates never had any concern about the validity of the data.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. "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 told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. "That's where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people," he says.

https://www.science.org/content/art...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Notice the fucking quotation marks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several posters in this forum have claimed that NASA and NOAA have no credibility with regards to global temperature having been caught falsifying it. When they have been asked to identify these instances, the only thing that has been presented has been John Bates' (a retired NOAA scientist) criticism of Tom Karl's (another former NOAA scientist) 2015 report on the warming pause. AGW deniers made great hay with Bates' comments, published first in a Judith Curry newsletter and then picked up widely. Bates himself, however, has since made clear that he does not believe Karl has ever tampered with data but rather that for the subject report, he failed to follow a protocol that Bates himself had set up at NOAA's NCEI before releasing the paper.

However, the posters making these claims regarding NASA and NOAA credibility have stated them as established facts. I open this thread to give my opponents on this forum the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Here is an article containing Bates assertion that Karl never tampered with data. Articles claiming otherwise based on Bates' own prior statements are numerous.

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Didn’t NASA and NOAA “adjust the baseline“ to make the 1940’s record warming disappear?

 

[Crick]

Didn’t NASA and NOAA “adjust the baseline“ to make the 1940’s record warming disappear?

No, they did not.

 

[jc456]

You never expect to run into people as ignorant as this and then you visit the internet.

Like you who admit falsifying and call it adjusted. Too fking funny

 

[Shelby86]

I am saying, again, that you are incorrect. Bates never had any concern about the validity of the data.

And once again you misinterpret the context and avoid answering the question. I've been referring to the very thing you said yourself was his concern. Do you believe the concern he expressed has no validity?

 

[Crick]

And once again you misinterpret the context and avoid answering the question. I've been referring to the very thing you said yourself was his concern. Do you believe the concern he expressed has no validity?

You repeatedly referred to it as "data". I did not misinterpret you. I, NOAA, NASA, BEST, JMA and Hadley all have complete faith in the Karl report which has been repeatedly verified since it was first released.

 

[fncceo]

because good science invites dissent ...

That must be why you refer to anyone here who doesn't share in your belief as an imbecile...

... good science.

 

[Shelby86]

You repeatedly referred to it as "data". I did not misinterpret you. I, NOAA, NASA, BEST, JMA and Hadley all have complete faith in the Karl report which has been repeatedly verified since it was first released.

Yet another non-answer, I didn't ask you about Karl or your faith in the report. I asked about Bates's concern. Do you believe the concern he expressed has no validity to it?

 

[Crick]

Yet another non-answer, I didn't ask you about Karl or your faith in the report. I asked about Bates's concern. Do you believe the concern he expressed has no validity to it?

I believe he may well have had reason to be concerned about the timing of the release of the Karl report. But that seems to me an internal political issue. The topic of this thread is the falsification of data. The timing of the report does not constitute the falsification of data.

 

[ReinyDays]

That must be why you refer to anyone here who doesn't share in your belief as an imbecile...

... good science.

I only chastise liars ... folks who claim to educated but are not ... I expect a PhD in Geology to be competent in Field Theory ... wouldn't you? ...

 

[Crick]

I only chastise liars ... folks who claim to educated but are not ... I expect a PhD in Geology to be competent in Field Theory ... wouldn't you? ...

Why would a geologist ever need to use field theory?

 

[elektra]

Why would a geologist ever need to use field theory?

still hiding from my replies to your comments? still hiding from my quotes and comments I made from your links?

or is crick busy trying to find a link from the google deck of cards