Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
I ask to expose his ignorance on HOW DR. Karl created his misleading dishonest paper.
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
- Thread starter RWNJ
- Start date
I ask to expose his ignorance on HOW DR. Karl created his misleading dishonest paper.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
And when called out on their lies, the Right plays perpetually dumb because since Reagan they have convinced themselves that if you pretend you are too STUPID to know you told a lie then you are not a liar.
The lie is Dr Bates NEVER said the data was manipulated, in fact he specifically said the data was NOT manipulated!!!!!!
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn’t follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."
Your link shows two difference faces from the same man, here is from his own blog post, shows what he really thought about Dr. Karls paper, from Climate Etc.,
Climate scientists versus climate data
EXCERPT:
"Posted on February 4, 2017 | 761 Comments
by John Bates
A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.
I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015."
LINK
bolding mine
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."
Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.
The red flag for people was the investigation conducted by insiders following the East Anglia debacle. Screamed fraud s0n..... a big reason why the "consensus" science is having no impact in the real world.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."
Actually you don't know what he did in his paper, that has been shown to be misleading and dishonest to dispute what even the IPCC said about the pause which they said was real.
By a single paper Dr. Karl by statistical manipulation made the pause go away, while it was still visible in other data sets. Yet even with his bogus claims still fails to support the AGW conjecture anyway.
Yet warmists wet their pants over a paper that doesn't help their cause at all, since it still fails to support their position.
That is how dumb you people are.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Hey Ed...... why do you support temperature data manipulation?
Doesn't sound like science to the rest of us
Doesn't sound like science to the rest of us
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
Since then a more recent paper showed up, from Nature Climate Change,
The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses
Published, 7 April 2017
"Abstract
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated1. This surface-warming hiatus is attributed by some studies to model errors in external forcing2,3,4, while others point to heat rearrangements in the ocean5,6,7,8,9,10 caused by internal variability, the timing of which cannot be predicted by the models1. However, observational analyses disagree about which ocean region is responsible11,12,13,14,15,16. Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified."
LINK
The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses
Published, 7 April 2017
"Abstract
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated1. This surface-warming hiatus is attributed by some studies to model errors in external forcing2,3,4, while others point to heat rearrangements in the ocean5,6,7,8,9,10 caused by internal variability, the timing of which cannot be predicted by the models1. However, observational analyses disagree about which ocean region is responsible11,12,13,14,15,16. Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified."
LINK
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
And even when exposed to the truth, the Right continue to play dumb so they can keep on lying.
Dr Bates had his panties in a wad because he felt HIS protocol for archiving data was not followed after he left.
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn’t follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”
BTW, the Karl study was later independently confirmed by a Berkley study.
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
That lie has already been exposed as the lie it is, but you knew that already!!!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
The Hausfather paper left out the fatal part of the Karl paper. They completely IGNORED IT!
Do you know what the difference is?
Waiting to see if you actually did research in this area since the Karl paper did something so wrong that only warmists like you would miss it. It has been torn apart in deep detail.
There have been indications that most of the science field doesn't take the Karl paper serious as it is laughable! Just noted uber and data manipulator warmists like Hausfather, Cook and others who have been roundly smashed in exposes.
Meanwhile as I said before Karl's misleading paper still doesn't rescue the failed AGW conjecture anyway.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
Suuure.....................
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
It is amazing how easily he fell for a paper that has a fatal problem in it. He is trying hard to save it, even to post a long winded dumb supporting paper from long known warmists nuts.
Yet even then, the Karl paper doesn't help them anyway, since it actually hurts the AGW conjecture, they don't that realize it because they are too ignorant!
It is funny that defend a paper so hard that actually hurts their cause.
RWNJ
Gold Member
- Oct 22, 2015
- 4,287
- 641
- 275
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #37
Face it guys. The climate models have failed to live up to reality. Man made global warming is a myth. You know this, but refuse to admit it. It's because you have an agenda. We know what that agenda is, and we will oppose it. No free lunch. You've been exposed as fools and Charlatans. This is the ugly truth you must face. Sucks to be you.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Day after day the Climate Crusaders come in here and argue their side of the science as if it is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. Day after day the same old diatribe..... delivered with the same persistent arrogance.
The problem of course is that we've been hearing about it for almost 20 years and outside of Internet forums Hollywood and Academia most of the population displays little or no interest. In other words they've yet to make their case.
The problem of course is that we've been hearing about it for almost 20 years and outside of Internet forums Hollywood and Academia most of the population displays little or no interest. In other words they've yet to make their case.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.
I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.
Remember this?
I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.
Remember this?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Face it guys, this is actual climate data, not models as your MessiahRushie has been telling you!!!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Fewer international tourists are visiting the U.S. — economic losses could be ‘staggering,’ researchers estimate- Started by berg80
- Replies: 0
-
With Ban On International Students, Harvard Forced To Begin Accepting Students From Ohio- Started by Votto
- Replies: 1
-
This Is The Bottom Line Of The Current State Of Politics- Started by Independent thinker
- Replies: 6
