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.
Using independent IHSST series, we find that NOAA’s new ERSSTv4 effectively corrects a significant cooling bias present in ERSSTv3b during the past two decades without introducing any detectable residual trend bias. We also conclude that two other widely used composite SST series, HadSST3 and COBE-SST, likely suffer from spurious cooling biases present in ship-based records in recent years.
When you say climate science will be damaged, can you elaborate?
What makes you think funding would be diverted to research of any sort?
I have no idea where this administration would be looking to put their research dollars.
Smith has used his position on the committee to spread climate skepticism and and harass NOAA. He once issued a statement alleging that scientists at the government agency of manipulating the data at the behest of the Obama Administration to provide evidence for climate change.
I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised that you ignore the fact that the findings of K15 are irrelevant except in that they correspond to the homogeneous datasets. Leave K15 out of it if you wish.
I call BULL# on this indepentent review based on common sense and the fact, (and it is fact Phage) that the raw data was never reviewed and the reviewers had no idea they were dealing with data at only 90 % confidence interval
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage
Is accuracy and truth in science a good thing or a bad thing
What is your opinion Phage?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee
What's your opinion about that?
Is it a good thing?
I am assuming that you also agree that scientists should not ever manipulate data for the sole purpose of influencing publi policy decisions.
originally posted by: Phage
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?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman
Attack the mirror, attack the poster yet ignore the data
At the time, no data had been presented.
How did I attack the poster?
originally posted by: Phage
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?
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
There are 8 data sets that show a pause in the rise of global temperature over the last 18 years. There is only one data set that shows no pause. and the raw data was never available for independent review.
originally posted by: D8Tee
He's gonna say "listen here, we have to get a lid on this climate change hysteria. You need the funding here it is, get to work discrediting the previous administrations work."
Won't be hard to do.
Invigorated by the new climate change-doubting presidential administration, a Texas congressman known for his ardent skepticism of manmade global warming — and early support for President Donald Trump — has scheduled a committee hearing next week “to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision making activities.”
The hearing, titled “Make EPA Great Again,” will be the first time the committee has met since Trump took office and the 115th Congress convened.
Invited witnesses, including the head of an industry group, “will discuss how EPA can pursue environmental protection and protect public health by relying on sound science,” according to a charter for Tuesday’s hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The committee's chairman, San Antonio Republican Lamar Smith, has been an especially vocal skeptic about widely accepted science on climate change. In a 2015 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he described global temperature increases over the past 15 years as “negligible” and said links between climate change and worsening weather events had been debunked./ex]