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: 9
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Dr. Bates did call the K15 data upon which the Pausebuster data as "preliminary and unverified" That is close enough to "fraudulent" for horseshoes.

Trudeau has announced a carbon tax of $50.00 per ton to rise to $70.00 per ton by 2020.

An awful lot of Canadians are not too happy about that.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


That is close enough to "fraudulent" for horseshoes.
Is it? How was the data presented in the paper in question? How much did it vary from the earlier "verified" model for the "pause?" Did you notice the title of that paper, btw?


Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
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!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I do not know what graphs you are showing me????

The Pausebuster graph in question was based on the K15 data set? Do you have the raw data for this specific data set?

No of course you don't because the preliminary and unverified K15 data set was used solely for the Pausebuster study and for no other purpose. Just in time for the Paris conference.

You are going out of your way to confuse the issues Phage!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

We are discussing a NOAA scandal in this thread, please start your own thread to deal with your issues.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




The Pausebuster graph in question was based on the K15 data set? Do you have the raw data for this specific data set?

No. But feel free to compare the graphs to this:
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...
edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Dr. Judith Curry was interviewed by a UK broadcast. In the broadcast, she apparently discussed the issue of historic temperatures and better explains what the scandal all means

The link is to the "Watts Up with That" website, which I know that many object to. I would really appreciate finding the original if possible. I also don't really care what what guest essayist wrote.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Also, other that publishing NOAA "rebuttals" has anything been reported by the American main stream media?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Either show me the K15 data set or bugger off. I want to see what the fuss is about for myself.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If you have reason to think that K15 varies data varies from the published v4 such that fraudulently erases the "pause", that should be easily demonstrable.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How about if NOAA publishes the raw data that was used as the basis for the Pausebuster study (just in time for the Paris Conference) so that scientists can judge for themselves?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why? The lack of a "pause" has been independently validated. That's the core of good science, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How about if NOAA publically explains why the more accurate buoy data was adjusted to the less accurate ship's data, instead of the other way around?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not if the people who did the verification did not know that they were dealing with data set where good data was adjusted to bad data. Not if they din't know that the confidence level was only 90 %



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


How about if NOAA publically explains why the more accurate buoy data was adjusted to the less accurate ship's data, instead of the other way around?
You're complaining about the "old" dataset now?


Second, there was a large change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked around World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day.
science.sciencemag.org...
edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

why are you suggesting everything but public access to the raw data that was used to develop the PauseBuster Study and to "adjust" all the oceans SST data



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I would be fine with public access. Do you think that the graphs presented in K15 are not accurate representations of that data?

You know that the K15 paper refers to this paper about the dataset, right?
journals.ametsoc.org...

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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Now everything is up for grabs isn't it? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

Now everything is up for grabs isn't it? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Except that the finding was independently verified. Sort of does away with the fool me once.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It doesn't matter what I think. Dr. Bates has reported that the data was preliminary, unverified and at 90 % confidence interval. He was a NOAA climatologist. If you don't believe him , why to you believe Karl et all?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I believe him when he says there was no manipulation of the data. I believe Karl because the current ERSST data set supports him as does the independent verification. There was no "pause."


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




top topics



 
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join