High ranking Global Warming scientist whistleblows on manipulated data ...

I have been accused of being anti scientific on a number of forums, I would like to point out that I am not, Dr John Bates, is the sort of person I would call a true scientist, for him, integrity of data matters, not the same story for NOAA apparently, who went to great lengths to manipulate the data in an attempt to discredit an earlier report stating a pause in climate temperatures since the late nineties. The data was released without due procedures and largely based on flawed methods and also ignoring satellite data. This report was pivotal during the Paris climate meeting and world leaders have committed billions based on this corrupt and incorrect information.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Even the most hard nosed alarmists, must now start to question the integrity of the entire politically biased, academically dishonest and media handled Hollywood production. GLOBAL WARMING” “CLIMATE CHANGE” “AGW”

I don’t’ want to discuss this, I am sick of discussing it lol. I looked and couldn’t see this posted so

FYI

Full story here

a reply to: kennyb72

You know that the NOAA results were independently verified, right?
No? You didn't? I guess Bates didn't know that either.
www.pri.org...


Also, isn't the credibility of the Daily Mail considered somewhat lacking?

a reply to: Phage

Cool! discredit the guy who wrote the book on how the data should be handled

You know that the NOAA results were independently verified, right?
No? You didn't? I guess Bates didn't know that either.
www.pri.org...

Yes of course they did, and probably given the same instructions to manipulate the data to provide the stimulus for the Paris conference. I respect your scientific views Phage, but I believe you, and many members here are being very naive about the political and financial gains to be made from achieving this AGW agenda and the changes that will be forced on us all. It is all manipulation.

doh, said I wasn't going to comment. Thats it, outa here

Oh, just read the Daily Mail comment to discredit the source, pretty weak if ya ask me lol

a reply to: kennyb72

Yes of course they did, and probably given the same instructions to manipulate the data to provide the stimulus for the Paris conference.

You make that statement having no idea of what was done.
Awesome.

Oh, just read the Daily Mail comment to discredit the source, pretty weak if ya ask me lol

That was a secondary point, actually.

a reply to: Phage

Yes I do Phage, they have done what they always do, present facts that are hard to verify, like the data that was lost due to a hard drive failure FFS, is this the standard of science we are talking about. It is the obvious need, by these people, to present the worst possible scenarios to create the most alarming case they can.

This is what science has been reduced to by unethical people who should be ashamed of themselves for discrediting what was once a noble pursuit.

a reply to: Phage

If somebody like Bates wanted to "whistle blow"... why the hell would he choose a tabloid like "The Mail" to blow it to? Don't you think he would send it to a real news agency? I mean, at the very least, FOX would have ran with it.

Why would he pick a "news" source that has been sued multiple times for libel and just making crap up?



ps edit - I just realized this was a reply to Phage. I meant it for the OP. Heh.

a reply to: kennyb72

Yes I do Phage, they have done what they always do, present facts that are hard to verify, like the data that was lost due to a hard drive failure FFS, is this the standard of science we are talking about.

So, you don't know anything about it. Your confirmation bias will not allow you to even consider it. What a surprise.


BTW, where is Bates' "irrefutable evidence?"

a reply to: Abysha

Why would he pick a "news" source that has been sued multiple times for libel and just making crap up?

You can grasp at the discredit tactic as tight as you like, but do you really think a major British newspaper is going to just make things up when it comes to such a hot topic as this. They are a rag, but also an institution in Britain and have a huge readership that they do not want to lose. They may sensationalise but the facts are facts.

Ah yes the 'pause' which only exists within certain constraints - time ranges and data sets:

originally posted by: Greven
The 'pause' only existed in datasets over specific start and end dates - namely, satellites, which aren't beyond critique insomuch as their accuracy is concerned.

There are 8 data sets in this tool: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA, UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT krig v2, Karl.
1979 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
...
1997 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
1998 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2001 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2002 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2003 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2004 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2005 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except BEST (land).
2006 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2007 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2008 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2010 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2011 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2013 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2014 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.

The 'pause' was merely a trick to get you to believe in the conspiracy against climate change. You no longer have it to rely on.

Dr. Bates seems to be grumbling about the methodology, not that it is warming.

Even UAH shows a warming trend of at least +0.12 degrees Celsius/decade, and it doesn't capture ground level - instead it averages (with weights and modeling) thousands of meters into a single number.

For some reason this posted twice with one click...

Oh well, will ask a question: is this information found anywhere other than the Daily Mail, which is (generously) a gossipy tabloid?

a reply to: Phage

Your lack of respect for Dr Bates is quite surprising Phage, I thought you admired scientists that had reached the pinnacle of their professions.

You do have another debating tactic I have noticed, and that is your propensity to blanket discredit anybody that doesn't agree with the official story. I am certain you are a very knowledgeable chap but you seem to have a chip in your head when it comes to questioning the status quo, most of us grew out of that by our late teens. Don't mean to sound mean but I think you are a bit out of touch with reality.

I will still enjoy reading your acerbic comments, even though I believe they are usually heavily coloured in your own paradigms .

Now I am really outa here

a reply to: kennyb72

Your lack of respect for Dr Bates is quite surprising Phage, I thought you admired scientists that had reached the pinnacle of their professions.

Pardon me? Where have I shown any disrespect for him? The Mail claimed that he had "irrefutable evidence." I asked where it is. Is there something wrong with that?

You do have another debating tactic I have noticed, and that is your propensity to blanket discredit anybody that doesn't agree with the official story.

So, now I'm the topic of the thread? How did that happen?

a reply to: kennyb72

I'll just leave this here.



AAC

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Phage

Cool! discredit the guy who wrote the book on how the data should be handled

Yes of course they did, and probably given the same instructions to manipulate the data to provide the stimulus for the Paris conference. I respect your scientific views Phage, but I believe you, and many members here are being very naive about the political and financial gains to be made from achieving this AGW agenda and the changes that will be forced on us all. It is all manipulation...

Naive. That's one possibility. I'd say Phage would be a great choice for a CNN Consultant on Climate Change. Seriously.

a reply to: kennyb72

I have been accused of being anti scientific on a number of forums, I would like to point out that I am not, Dr John Bates, is the sort of person I would call a true scientist, for him, integrity of data matters, not the same story for NOAA apparently, who went to great lengths to manipulate the data in an attempt to discredit an earlier report stating a pause in climate temperatures since the late nineties.

Wouldn't sweat it since the people that go around doing that don't even understand the meaning of the word Science or the meaning for the scientific method.

That last part means Science doesn't deal in absolutism. It's subject to change. The irony on that one.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

That's from 1998. I wonder if they all still feel the same way.

a reply to: Phage

The list of names and petitions continue to be added to this day.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.

AAC

a reply to: Phage

So, now I'm the topic of the thread? How did that happen?

Sorry Phage, I don't normally get celebrities on my posts, so I was just a little nervous

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Tell me. Were the credentials verified?

Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake"

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Cool banana's, thanks to no warming for 19 yrs lol