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.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
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...
You make that statement having no idea of what was done.
Yes of course they did, and probably given the same instructions to manipulate the data to provide the stimulus for the Paris conference.
That was a secondary point, actually.
Oh, just read the Daily Mail comment to discredit the source, pretty weak if ya ask me lol
So, you don't know anything about it. Your confirmation bias will not allow you to even consider it. What a surprise.
Yes I do Phage, they have done what they always do, present facts that are hard to verify, like the data that was lost due to a hard drive failure FFS, is this the standard of science we are talking about.
Why would he pick a "news" source that has been sued multiple times for libel and just making crap up?
originally posted by: Greven
The 'pause' only existed in datasets over specific start and end dates - namely, satellites, which aren't beyond critique insomuch as their accuracy is concerned.
There are 8 data sets in this tool: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA, UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT krig v2, Karl.
1979 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
...
1997 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
1998 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2001 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2002 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2003 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2004 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2005 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except BEST (land).
2006 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2007 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2008 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2010 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2011 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2013 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2014 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
The 'pause' was merely a trick to get you to believe in the conspiracy against climate change. You no longer have it to rely on.
Pardon me? Where have I shown any disrespect for him? The Mail claimed that he had "irrefutable evidence." I asked where it is. Is there something wrong with that?
Your lack of respect for Dr Bates is quite surprising Phage, I thought you admired scientists that had reached the pinnacle of their professions.
So, now I'm the topic of the thread? How did that happen?
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.
originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Phage
Cool! discredit the guy who wrote the book on how the data should be handled
Yes of course they did, and probably given the same instructions to manipulate the data to provide the stimulus for the Paris conference. I respect your scientific views Phage, but I believe you, and many members here are being very naive about the political and financial gains to be made from achieving this AGW agenda and the changes that will be forced on us all. It is all manipulation...
I have been accused of being anti scientific on a number of forums, I would like to point out that I am not, Dr John Bates, is the sort of person I would call a true scientist, for him, integrity of data matters, not the same story for NOAA apparently, who went to great lengths to manipulate the data in an attempt to discredit an earlier report stating a pause in climate temperatures since the late nineties.
The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.
Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake"