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: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

but although the assessment stated that the Buoy data is more accurate, the K15 adjusted the buoy data to the ship data. The ERST version 4.0 was created (with a confidence interval of only 90 %)

(How can more accurate data, adjusted upward to correct to less accurate data result in a more accurate data set)




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.


it is the opinion of the independent reviewers that 2 other data sets suffer from spurious cooling biases present in ship-based records in recent years.

so the less accurate ship data shows "spurious cooling" but adjusting the more accurate buoy data to the less accurate ship data results in a more accurate data set (ERSST v. 4.0)


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


This is as much bull# as the study from the University of Exeters that during the "Pause that didn't exist" trees held their breath

wattsupwiththat.com...




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




When you say climate science will be damaged, can you elaborate?

The administration will cut research funding and promote the notion that climate scientists who believe that human activity has a major role in global warming are not credible. They will also attempt to discredit climate science worldwide.


I have no idea where this administration would be looking to put their research dollars.
What makes you think funding would be diverted to research of any sort?

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Smith is rubbing his hands together right now...
He's going to do all he can to burn down the house of climate change.
He's been waiting for this.
What kind of power does he now hold? I would guess it has increased since the Republicans have won?

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.

thinkprogress.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

What's your opinion about that?
Is it a good thing?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Is accuracy and truth in science a good thing or a bad thing

What is your opinion Phage?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




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
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.

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

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?

I think it's a good thing.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

What's your opinion about that?
Is it a good thing?

I do not think that a swing as far as i feel it is going to go is a good thing.
I do believe the dangers of climate change have been overstated, mainly in the mainstream media. I don't like hearing from my friends that they 'fear climate change.'
Stack sourced pollution should be focussed on, scrubbers according to my research are still not being utilized at all plants despite the cap and trade in S02 emissions. I'd gladly pay a couple pennies more per Kw/h to have these mandated.
A nation runs on it's energy supply, and to effect a change in the long term, we need cheap energy in the short term.
I don't see fossil fuels going anywhere in the short term future, there needs to be an alternative that is economical.
If we price our energy too high, the energy intensive industries will be displaced to countries where the rates are cheaper, it won't change the worlds emissions, just move them.
It's complex.
There are so many environmental issues that need addressing right now, it seems for every answer a person thinks up, there are two more questions.


edit on 5-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am confident that not only will the raw data of K15 and ERSST v. 40 will be thoroughly investigated in the next little while by Congress and this matter will be straightened out to the satisfaction of all.

I am also confident that the decision of NOAA to publish the pause buster study based only on the raw data of K15, just in time for the Paris conference will also be thoroughly invested to determine if NOAA attempted to misuse raw data to manipulate the political process.

I am assuming that you also agree that scientists should not ever manipulate data for the sole purpose of influencing publi policy decisions. Cause that would fall under the umbrella of that science should be above such machinations and it would be "alarmist" as we discussed earlier.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




I am assuming that you also agree that scientists should not ever manipulate data for the sole purpose of influencing publi policy decisions.

In that assumption you are correct.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

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?

The Daily Mail is ok. In other words some of their articles are good scoops while others are Far fetched.

I still think we don't know enough about whether or not our planet just goes through cycles since we haven't recorded all the data for its entire lifespan to give a proper analysis
However it's hard not to notice some things need to change in order to stop the irreversible damage

Our planet is destined to burn out eventually and perhaps by the time it dies we've already colonized other planets or be living in space stations. Not to say we should just wave goodbye to it, it's beeen nice knowing you.
I don't know. I'm not qualified.

It's probably not a good idea to be drilling so deep, cutting so many trees down, driving so many cars etc.

What kind of an apocalypse are we expecting?

edit on 5-2-2017 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

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?


I recommend you read your post again....



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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?

Isnt the credibility of NOAA and the "independent verifiers" credibility under scrutiny ? Or should be after all the "true sciences" disagreeing and releasing statements of altered data ? Hell , I question em on the sole basis not one set of data that I have found goes back further than a hundred and fifty years. True sciences go back 100s of thousands and/or millions of years



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

You haven't looked at any ice core, sediment, or tree ring records, then.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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.

On the first page of this thread, you can see that this is false.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

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.

The military has been concerned about the threat of climate change since before the Bush administration.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

The military would be concerned about anything that would bring them extra tax dollars



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

The issue of whether the raw data was examined or not has been discussed ad nauseam. It was never publishsx. You are confusing the K15 data with ERSST v. 4.0

The pause-buster study was based solely on the raw data of K15.

Please provide a link to the raw data of K15 and/or who reviewed the raw data and the independent review if any.

Who decided that it was appropriate to adjust the buoy data upwards to be homogenised with the ship data. Why would anyone adjust the more accurate data to be homogenized with the less accurate ship data.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
You're confusing my words. This isn't even about the K15 data.

The "pause" went away, save for very specific start/end dates on certain data sets, in 2015. It completely went away with 2016, except for RSSv3.3 from 1998 (or 2001 or 2002 or 2010 ONLY in TLT) to 2016 (refined RSSv4.0 does not show a pause).

You can see this yourself. Go to the first page, find my post, read it.

The "pause" is dead, and has been for awhile. Stop kicking a dead horse.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Alarmists are going to be discredited.
Lamar Smith is going to make the EPA great again.
That pause might be making a comeback.


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]




top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join