It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

either produce K15 or bugger off. Why did NOAA not publish it?

And there still the question of silly bugger with GHM (sorry remember the intials) and computer giving a different result every time a new input is given.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




either produce K15 or bugger off.

Show that Bates claims fraud and/or manipulation of data, or bugger off.

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Already been done in this thread numerous times. What do the words "preliminary, unverified and 90 % confidence interval" mean to you?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Bates is the person who provided the data. He is the data analysts. He would know if his data has been tempered or corrupted. GW has been discredited for the millionth time.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That's a pretty limited quote.

What does this mean to you?

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"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 said.


And, as pointed out, the paper actually "disclosed" exactly what it was.

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1


He would know if his data has been tempered or corrupted.
Indeed. But it wasn't "his" data, he did not provide it


Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"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 said.

www.eenews.net...
edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And as we both agree, there is a credibility problem with scientists who would rush a paper to publication in a deliberate attempt to manipulate a political process. That is fraud



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No it isn't. Fraud would be an intentional manipulation of that data.

And Bates is welcome to his opinion about Karl's motivation but it is not necessarily correct.

Whether the research was published to influence the Paris climate talks is a moot point, said Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department's climate talks negotiating team in 2015. He 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.

"I never heard it discussed once, let alone this one NOAA report, discussed in Paris, the run-up to Paris or anything after Paris, so this is really just an incredibly bizarre claim," Light said.

www.eenews.net...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Adjusting the past to match climate "models' is also fraud. Regardless of whether you like the results or not, someone took the time to measure temperature and write it down. No matter what "scientists" say, they weren't there, they don't know what "error" if any has occurred.

Statistically, it is just a likely that the historical temperature is warmer rather than colder. Why do all adjustments made by 'scientists" only go up... except for the medeival warming period. That got colder didn't it?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Why do all adjustments made by 'scientists" only go up
They don't, in some locations. It turns out that some stations adjust downwards.


except for the medeival warming period. That got colder didn't it?
Not that I know of.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Since MWP also "disappeared" from Micheal Manns Hockey Stick Graph, it I am assuming that southern hemisphere temperatures where "adjusted" downward"

Your entire arguement is based on "Appeal to Authority". That is just not good enough anymore.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You still haven't explained why ship's data that had a warm bias ended up, in general, being adjusted even warmer.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Since MWP also "disappeared" from Micheal Manns Hockey Stick Graph, it I am assuming that southern hemisphere temperatures where "adjusted" downward
Why assume anything?
www.meteo.psu.edu...



Your entire arguement is based on "Appeal to Authority". That is just not good enough anymore.

I quoted the "authority" you used; Bates. He said there was no manipulation of the data.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

You still haven't explained why ship's data that had a warm bias ended up, in general, being adjusted even warmer.

I'm not sure what you mean. The net result was a downward adjustment applied to buoy data.

In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction that is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4.

science.sciencemag.org...
edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It seems like Bates said both things. He gave a first hand account of what is tantamount to fraud, but watered down his formal complaint to what can be proved.

Similar to resorting to tax fraud charges to go after mafia.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

that is the way I see it too.

Dr. Bates reports "just the facts" and refrains from offering an opinion.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Why do you deniers concentrate solely on temperature measurements rather than the knock consequences proving that the temperatures seen are real ?

For example the retreat of the vast majority of glaciers, or the poleward drift of flora and fauna, or the altitude change of flora and fauna, or coral bleaching etc etc The changes to flora and fauna are occurring too fast for species to adapt.

Or are you deniers expecting me to believe that the plants and animals of the world have decided to migrate as part of some global tax scam!


I know of plenty of coral not bleaching
The issue is man made global warming or non man made global warming

The ice hasn't melted and we are not living under water as they taught us 20 years ago

Maybe the earths global warming is seasonal, global cooling in a century or two

It would help to understand the issue before looking a fool



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




either produce K15 or bugger off.

Show that Bates claims fraud and/or manipulation of data, or bugger off.


Thats not how science works and you should at least know that
The data should be released for everyone to see

But NO

As we have already established by your very own link, they, whoever they are dont want people to know whats being discussed.
Its all secrets and secrets are generally lies, hiding information so the truth can be hidden


Science by its very own definition is data, where is the data.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Greven

You don't even no what the Pause is, never mind where it went away or not.

This is the first official response to the story in the Daily mail

www.lse.ac.uk...

The link was posted earlier in this thread

I think that the story in the Daily Mail is kind of irrelevant now that John Bates has posted his own blog. We can read the original and don't need to worry about how some journalist interpreted them.

I don't know what the "pause" is?

Why don't you share with us all what you think the "pause" is then, if you think I'm misunderstanding something?

If you do not elaborate, I can only assume you are engaging in a personal attack, so please do clarify for us all what you believe the "pause" to be.

Secondly, this 'official response' talks a great deal about the inaccuracies in that article without once saying its author outright lied. One of those in-depth responses is to show the differences between NOAA and Hadley records after the adjustments in Karl, et. al:

Shock! Horror! They're both so very... similar.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Greven

why are you posting more useless graphs. If you are going to post graphs at least post the right one - the satellite graph please.




top topics



 
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join