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: 8
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR




You're conflating separate issues. The key questions for climate scientists has always been why global surface temperatures have warmed at a significantly slower rate in last two decades than expected from simulations.

In your valued opinion, why is this?




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
You people are insufferable...the question has never been whether the earth has global warming or global cooling but whether it is caused by humanity. It is truly remarkable how the original topic has been modified to leave out the manmade wording so that both sides can continue arguing when no one actually knows why the planet is warming and why it has been cycling between warming and cooling for as far back as they can look.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR

Thank you for answering my question



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
A clarification has been offered by Bates:

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said, “but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

www.eenews.net...
edit on 2/7/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Daily Mail claim widely panned by scientists:


I worked for three and a bit years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up to the Karl et al. paper (although I had left prior to that paper's preparation and publication). I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015. The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. [Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units blog, 2/5/17]


So the story is basically "some scientist we founds says..."


urrent and Former NOAA And NASA Officials Issued Harsh Rebuttals To Daily Mail. Climate Nexus compiled reaction to Rose’s Daily Mail article from several past and present officials with NOAA and NASA, including: James Hansen, former Director of NASA-GISS: “This is another case of making a mountain out of an anthill, while not telling the public that it is an anthill. The misimpression, that there might be a substantial flaw in climate change analyses, was predictable and surely was realized and even encouraged by those who brought forth this attack. The only censure should be on the heads of those who pretend that there is some significant new revelation and those who aid in the promulgation of this falsehood.”

Rt. Rear Admiral David Titley, former NOAA chief operating officer: “In summary, the Mail on Sunday has found a disgruntled ex-NOAA employee and is using him to construct alternative facts about the climate. Unfortunately for all of us, the air will keep warming, the seas will keep rising, and the ice will keep melting, regardless of the Daily Mail's fanciful claims and accusations. The real atmosphere is impervious to alternative facts.”

Jane Lubchenco, former NOAA administrator: “These are sad, old accusations that have been definitively disproven. The accusations are a blatant attempt to sow confusion and doubt with the goal of distracting folks and undermining the global momentum to reduce carbon emissions. ... Definitive studies by other authors have independently and conclusively verified Karl et al.’s findings. I know that NOAA has robust scientific checks and balances. Its scientists are widely recognized as outstanding and its high standards and procedures ensure that its products are rigorous and of the highest quality. Moreover, there is a refreshing openness to multiple points of view and possible interpretations, but in the end, conclusions are based on data, rigorous analysis, and are subject to peer-review.” [Climate Nexus, accessed 2/6/17]


Of course these are all scientists and no-one trusts scientists anymore... except the Daily Mail when there is one saying what they want to hear.

Bogus Daily Mail Story Spearheads Right-Wing Assault on Climate Change Science



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: twfau

The first day - the response to John Bates was "its a lie perpetrated by David Rose"

The second day - its an antihill, its all been discussed before, John Bates apparently never worked on anything in 30 years at NOAA and is in no position to know anything.

Can't wait for todays response.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: twfau

The first day - the response to John Bates was "its a lie perpetrated by David Rose"

The second day - its an antihill, its all been discussed before, John Bates apparently never worked on anything in 30 years at NOAA and is in no position to know anything.

Can't wait for todays response.

Who said it was a lie?

The Daily Mail is not a wholly reputable source; there were requests for solidity to what was being claimed.

I keep hearing that one can't trust the media, but it really seems like that doesn't apply when it agrees with your perspective... then it's unbiased and doesn't need alternate sources!

At any rate, I see no counterclaim yet to my note that the pause was dead on the very first page of this thread. No remark to the contrary. The pause died awhile ago, get over it.
edit on 18Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:19:45 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
A clarification has been offered by Bates:

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said, “but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

www.eenews.net...


Hmmm
So the issue is not tampering with data but manipulating it, by only releasing the data that supports what, exactly?
So not disclosing everything is an acceptable scientific practice, withholding information is not manipulating data?

Secrets are lies, they are lying or information would be available to everyone.
Release the information, all the data and let it tell the truth, let the data be on public record so everyone can see the evidence

Funny thing, I know temperatures in the ocean have changed, maybe even caused by mankind
But this is just wrong



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
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


pretty much sums it up.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




So the issue is not tampering with data but manipulating it, by only releasing the data that supports what, exactly?

No. The issue Bates has is that that Karl did not follow proper archiving procedures, in his opinion.

The claim that Karl manipulated data to make the "pause" disappear was made up by David Rose. That is not what happened and that is not what Bates says happened.


edit on 2/8/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman




So the issue is not tampering with data but manipulating it, by only releasing the data that supports what, exactly?

No. The issue Bates has is that that Karl did not follow proper archiving procedures, in his opinion.

The claim that Karl manipulated data to make the "pause" disappear was made up by David Rose. That is not what happened and that is not what Bates says happened.



No the issue is not Bates and Karl as you try and infer


The issue is the propensity of people to turn man made global warming arguments into global warming arguments, the seemingly endless stream of scientists questioning the scientific authority's methods, the issue is not bates and karl, bates and karl are a small part of the big issue we are discussing
The issue, global warming or man made global warming and the validity of the science behind it


I dont care what Bates thinks of Karl's or anyones procedures
or who makes pauses disappear
Archiving procedures, what next, what more, what does get left out, put in, why the secrecy, why not proper procedure, why not be clear that you are taking a sentence from a report and elucidating that one single sentence.
Its smoke and mirrors.

Where is the raw data, where is it.
Oh we cant have it because? Obama said so, " could chill the scientific process by making it harder for researchers to communicate openly while they were actively engaged in research"

Why are we seeing some people in these positions constantly, struggling, arguing, revealing, this constant
(Climate gate 4 now isnt it ? ) stream of questioning and contesting what some others demand others believe

Its strange that you are saying that everyone who questions what you believe is wrong
Its strange that you wont allow an argument, a contrary position to yours to be held
Its strange you cant see that there are a few real issues that real scientists hold with the data

Its strange that you are so adamant that you are right and everyone else contrary to you is wrong
Thats not how educated people think



I also noticed you left something out of your quote, actually you left everything out that didnt support your position, you left out most of everything but that one sentence that supported you, very clever, some would call it manipulating the story, others not

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.
Bates, who recently retired from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, claimed in his post that the agency rushed research disproving the global warming pause to publish in Science magazine before the December 2015 Paris climate talks. Climate skeptics have called that proof of massive fraud among federal climate researchers and said it allowed world leaders to be "duped" into signing the Paris climate agreement to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel use.


"Bates said the NOAA study relied on land data that were "experimental." Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified, especially if there is an urgent situation that requires something to go out quickly because it is related to human health, safety and the environment."

How about.....
"the House Science, Space and Technology Committee portrayed Bates' allegations as a bombshell that required immediate investigation."
but not an issue to you Phage, hmmm, a tempest in a tea cup

More???
This is from your link Phage
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has issued subpoenas and has for nearly two years attempted to obtain scientists' emails involved in the global warming pause research. A Science Committee aide yesterday said Bates' revelation was evidence that NOAA needed further investigation because its own employees were identifying significant policy breaches.
But you Phage, alas!!!

You quote this
“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said, “but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”


Do you see my problem Phage, seriously???
You pull a sentence from a link, ignore the rest all together
www.eenews.net...

Now for me, anyone interested in understanding the issue should head over to the link and see what it says in clear and simple english, then, make your mind up.
Ignorance is to believe those who would cut and past a sentence and think that they carry enough weight to seduce your mind.

Dont believe single sentences, a single sentence is most always a quote that supports an argument out of context
www.eenews.net...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtWillR
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

That seems to be a display error on the side of the TV network, not an actual measurement error. I don't think errors of that magnitude would go overlooked for long in quality controlled data sets.


I'm not sure a computer program would accept an input and display a totally random output.

And it's a coincidence that 460 F happens to be the maximum range of certain magnetic surface probe thermocouples.

What about errors of a small magnitude?



The main limitation with thermocouples is accuracy; system errors of less than one degree Celsius (°C) can be difficult to achieve.[3]


en.m.wikipedia.org...

There is a lot of room for bias when you start manipulating data to correct for errors and average for unsampled areas.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This was an excellent thread I very much enjoyed reading this!

Sf



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LuXTeN

And we have more fallout from the Dr. John Bates whistle-blowing:

news.morningstar.com...

From the Conservative Party Leader, Brian Trost (opposition) and a Geophysicist:




Said Trost, "I have published an Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau calling on him to rescind any assent given or commitments made based on inaccurate and potentially fraudulently reported data."





"The real data suggests that human activity affects climate change less than had been thought by promoters of man-made climate change," added Trost. "As a geophysicist, I have found the data used in support of man-made climate change to be disconnected from reality." To read Brad Trost's Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, click here (bradforleader.ca...).


A political response, no doubt

So we have gone from: A lie
To: an anthill
To: data used...may be disconnected from reality and a call to rescind Paris Treaty



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Said Trost, "I have published an Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau calling on him to rescind any assent given or commitments made based on inaccurate and potentially fraudulently reported data."

I wonder if he communicated with Dr. Bates about that "fraud." Near as I can tell, Bates never said any such thing.

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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The letter to Premier Trudeau also reported that:


bradforleader.ca...



In assessing ocean temperature, NOAA used "bad data from ships" to correct "good data from buoys." The NOAA report also manipulated data from some 4000 weather stations around the world to result in a higher rate of warming than a fair assessment of the data would have - and already had - indicated. The real data suggests that human activity affects climate change less than had been thought by promoters of man-made climate change.


The issue is still growing.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

What is he calling "real data?"



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well he specifies that "real data" would be the data BEFORE good buoy data was made to match the bad ship data so I would suggest that he is refering to ERSST 3.0 or whatever version of ERSST existed prior to the data being changed.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I would suggest he really has no idea what he is talking about.




top topics



 
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join