CDZ More lies from scientists.

[RetiredGySgt]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying in regards global warming. Every couple years we get these glimpses into the lying done by scientists to justify an unproven untenable position.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is an interesting and major charge that this article alleges. It is also clearly biased in a way that it should not be. Calling out 'warmers' in the very opening paragraph is not something I expect from an actual informative source.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You really should dig a little deeper on these sorts of things.

That "legend" resulted from Rep. Lamar Smith encountering John Bates' blog post. Bates later told E&E News, "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."

The paper's role in the Paris Accord was misrepresented. Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department's climate talks negotiating team in 2015, said the talks had already been underway for about four years when the paper was published and that 188 nations were relying on a tremendous amount of research to support their goal of reducing humans' carbon emissions to slow the warming of the planet. They had also already crafted proposed reductions by the time the research was published, he said.

SCIENCE: 'Whistleblower' says protocol was breached but no data fraud

No Data Manipulation at NOAA

 

[JimBowie1958]

You really should dig a little deeper on these sorts of things.

That "legend" resulted from Rep. Lamar Smith encountering John Bates' blog post. Bates later told E&E News, "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."

The paper's role in the Paris Accord was misrepresented. Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department's climate talks negotiating team in 2015, said the talks had already been underway for about four years when the paper was published and that 188 nations were relying on a tremendous amount of research to support their goal of reducing humans' carbon emissions to slow the warming of the planet. They had also already crafted proposed reductions by the time the research was published, he said.

SCIENCE: 'Whistleblower' says protocol was breached but no data fraud

No Data Manipulation at NOAA

'Adjustments' to data is by definition manipulation, dude.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You really should dig a little deeper on these sorts of things.

That "legend" resulted from Rep. Lamar Smith encountering John Bates' blog post. Bates later told E&E News, "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."

The paper's role in the Paris Accord was misrepresented. Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department's climate talks negotiating team in 2015, said the talks had already been underway for about four years when the paper was published and that 188 nations were relying on a tremendous amount of research to support their goal of reducing humans' carbon emissions to slow the warming of the planet. They had also already crafted proposed reductions by the time the research was published, he said.

SCIENCE: 'Whistleblower' says protocol was breached but no data fraud

No Data Manipulation at NOAA

'Adjustments' to data is by definition manipulation, dude.

See....This is why I post links...So I can tell who's interested in the truth and who's not. I don't think you are. You clearly didn't read the linked content I provided. I read it. That's why I shared the link.

Had you read it, you'd have found that Bates, the guy on whose blog Rep. Smith's claims are based, explicitly said, "“It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form," and that the issue he raised was one of "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability."

If you bother to gol look for it, you'll find too that Bates expressly addressed the manipulation aspect. Let me know what remarks you find he gave in that regard. There's more than just that....I'll leave that for you to also discover on your own.

Just remember what I first said in an effort to give you a hint that maybe you should look a little harder before going with the "confirmation bias" route of accepting what you find on sites that publish writers who have an axe to grind.

You really should dig a little deeper on these sorts of things.

I promise you that I don't write stuff here to deliberately lead people astray. There's nothing for me to gain by being "tricky" like that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

See....This is why I post links...So I can tell who's interested in the truth and who's not. I don't think you are. You clearly didn't read the linked content I provided. I read it. That's why I shared the link.

Had you read it, you'd have found that Bates, the guy on whose blog Rep. Smith's claims are based, explicitly said, "“It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form," and that the issue he raised was one of "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability."

I suppose you are referring to this section of text here, which I did read:

But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”

During a Feb. 7 hearing on the use of scientific information at the Environmental Protection Agency, Smith repeated the accusations while questioning Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

After Holt cited Bates’ statement to E&E — “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” Bates said — Smith responded, “I encourage you to talk to Dr. Bates because everything I have read that he has said about the Karl report suggests to me that NOAA cheated and got caught.” Smith added, “They did falsify data to exaggerate global warming.” In his opening statement, Smith also said, “Science should retract the Karl study,” based on Bates’ accusations.​

The problem is that I am old school physics, I guess, and the way I was trained was to NOT change the raw data, you report that, then if you have to normalize the data in some way, you explain that then show the normalized data. You let the people who are going to verify your report access to the raw data and the derived data so that they can peer review the methodology, validate and comment on it.

When I worked at a University Physics Department as a machinist and Physics major, I saw how often things were fudged even way back then by cleaning up outliers that were not reported and using different kinds of graph paper to plot against. If you contended a direct relationship between X and Y you ran it on logarithmic paper, if you claimed an exponential relationship you ran it on regular scaled gp and dropped more of the lower 'outliers'. That was unethical then and this is unethical now.

ALL DATA should be reported so that peer review can go unhindered.

These ass holes are saying "No one needs the original data, you should just trust us." and that is not science.

 

[edthecynic]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change
Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying in regards global warming. Every couple years we get these glimpses into the lying done by scientists to justify an unproven untenable position.

Of course, the fake news from the Daily Mail your article is based on got caught fudging a fake graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified the data. That's right, the Mail FALSIFIED their graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified their data.

Why is it that deniers ALWAYS use fabrication and outright lying to try to disprove global warming?

 

[frigidweirdo]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying in regards global warming. Every couple years we get these glimpses into the lying done by scientists to justify an unproven untenable position.

But you'll accept lying and manipulation from oil industries though.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course, the fake news from the Daily Mail your article is based on got caught fudging a fake graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified the data. That's right, the Mail FALSIFIED their graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified their data.
Why is it that deniers ALWAYS use fabrication and outright lying to try to disprove global warming?

Present it and lets evaluate the graph.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But you'll accept lying and manipulation from oil industries though.

And when the facts come from sources you dont like and then dismiss it entirely due to their source, that is called "ad hominem" and it is a logical fallacy.

Not that matters to liberals any more.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course, the fake news from the Daily Mail your article is based on got caught fudging a fake graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified the data. That's right, the Mail FALSIFIED their graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified their data.
Why is it that deniers ALWAYS use fabrication and outright lying to try to disprove global warming?

Present it and lets evaluate the graph.

This is the dishonest graph from the Mail.

It, like your dishonest blink graph, uses two DIFFERENT baselines. The Met Office/Hadley data uses a 30 year 1961 to 1990 anomaly baseline and NOAA uses a 100 year 1901 to 2000 anomaly baseline. Same thing with your phony blink graph, if you notice one graph ends at 2000 when NOAA was using a 30 year baseline and the other graph goes beyond 2000, though they dishonestly cut the graph off to try to hide the fact that the graph is from after NOAA switched to the more accurate 100 year baseline.

Here is the same data using the 30 year baseline of the Met Office/ Hadely data, the the Mail says is verified, for both data sets.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It, like your dishonest blink graph, uses two DIFFERENT baselines.

This graph does not have as its primary difference the use of different baselines, dude.

I would explain it to you but it should be apparent to anyone that has had calculus.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I suppose you are referring to this section of text here, which I did read:

I owe you an apology. I made that specific comment thinking I was responding to the OP. I slovenly failed to pay attention to whom I was responding. Had I paid attention I would not have written that. statement about "reading carefully" in response to you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I suppose you are referring to this section of text here, which I did read:

Pretty much, yes, except for the parts where Rep. Smith, an attorney with no apparent background in science, misrepresents what Bates said and later clarified. The OP ignored that clarification, perhaps didn't even exercise the barest bit of intellectual circumspection needed to go look for it, perhaps because all he wanted to do is "rag on" global warming, the Paris Accord, scientists in general, or something.

I am old school physics

Okay.....

When I worked at a University Physics Department as a machinist and Physics major, I saw how often things were fudged

I don't care how much you saw "fudged;" I care whether the data in the specific report/study under discussion was "fudged." Limiting access to data and "fudging" data just aren't the same things. It appears from your subsequent remarks in the post I've quoted that you recognize as much.

My issue is with Smith and this thread's O misrepresenting the facts of what did and did not happen as goes the study. I also have an issue with Smith seemingly having used his Congressional "bull horn" to advance an ideological/political end based on that misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is that nobody, other than Rep. Smith, has claimed the data were fabricated or altered.

You let the people who are going to verify your report access to the raw data and the derived data so that they can peer review the methodology, validate and comment on it......ALL DATA should be reported so that peer review can go unhindered.

These ass holes are saying "No one needs the original data, you should just trust us."

I agree with you. Had Smith and the OP presented that as the issue with the study, I'd have nothing to say. That's not what Smith said and it's not what the OP said.

Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying

Frankly, neither the OP nor Smith took the time to look into Bates' claims and clarifications. How long did it take you or me to do just that? Two minutes, perhaps? And Smith even has staff who could have done as much, presumably they did and told him "what's what," and he ignored it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Frankly, neither the OP nor Smith took the time to look into Bates' claims and clarifications. How long did it take you or me to do just that? Two minutes, perhaps? And Smith even has staff who could have done as much, presumably they did and told him "what's what," and he ignored it.

The way scientists today view what is manipulated, fudged or manipulate is likely not the same as those outside of science backgrounds.

 

[edthecynic]

It, like your dishonest blink graph, uses two DIFFERENT baselines.

This graph does not have as its primary difference the use of different baselines, dude.

I would explain it to you but it should be apparent to anyone that has had calculus.

I take your avoiding the Mail fake graph means you grudging admit it was fake though you are not honest enough to admit it.

After 2000 NOAA switched to the more accurate 1901 to 2000 baseline which includes the US temperatures.
See link below, clearly labeled as 1901 to 2000 baseline, and notice it matches your blink. Be sure to change time scale to annual.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[ding]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change
Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying in regards global warming. Every couple years we get these glimpses into the lying done by scientists to justify an unproven untenable position.

Of course, the fake news from the Daily Mail your article is based on got caught fudging a fake graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified the data. That's right, the Mail FALSIFIED their graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified their data.

Why is it that deniers ALWAYS use fabrication and outright lying to try to disprove global warming?

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling.

Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 600 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.

Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 5 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.

The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.

Relax. Everything will be ok.

 

[ding]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change
Ohh look more fabrication and outright lying in regards global warming. Every couple years we get these glimpses into the lying done by scientists to justify an unproven untenable position.

Of course, the fake news from the Daily Mail your article is based on got caught fudging a fake graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified the data. That's right, the Mail FALSIFIED their graph to make the false claim that NOAA falsified their data.

Why is it that deniers ALWAYS use fabrication and outright lying to try to disprove global warming?

We are in an interglacial cycle, Einstein. Relax. Our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles.

 

[edthecynic]

We are in an interglacial cycle, Einstein. Relax. Our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles.

And what, if anything, does that Straw Man have to do with the false claim of the OP???

 

[PK1]

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

What does this guy's opinion have anything to do with real science data?
Does Duke have objective opinions or a science background?
How about this opinion piece ...

Selwyn Duke is An Idiot
.