- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:19 pm to League Champs
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:19 pm to League Champs
quote:
For 'scientists' to even conjure up the need to go back to the 1930s in order to adjust temps from what was actually published in newspapers of the day, says all you need to know about their motives
you have no idea what you are posting about, just stop, its embarrassing
1
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:20 pm to member12
quote:quote:I suspect I will be reposting this AP link roughly one bazillion times
LINKquote:So:
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
- Bates designed a new, complicated set of procedures (20 steps!) for climate data archiving which required changes in documentation and software
- There were delays in implementation because of the usual software problems that crop up when a bureaucracy changes things
- Papers were published before their underlying data conformed to these procedures (not to the degree that other scientists couldn't replicate them, just not to Bates' standards)
- Bates retires and stews over this a bit while finding sympathetic ears at the House Science Committee and the Daily Mail, to whom he gives an interview
- They then publish and hype a story taking his complaints about data archiving and making them sound like "CLIMATEGATE II OR MAYBE III I'VE LOST COUNT"
- Bates then realizes what he's done and gives a second interview to the AP affirming this is about how to properly archive the data, not about the provenance or accuracy of the data itself
- Nobody reads the second interview and the first interview is posted twice a day by people who don't read carefully and think it proves AGW is a hoax
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:23 pm to Iosh
Here is video with the original article, the original paper and the data set manipulation calmly explained in a 15 minute video.
all sourced and tucked away neatly for those of you who are honestly interested.
the daily mail UK vs NOAA
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:27 pm to Iosh
Dale will be here shortly to shite on that link bc it doesn't confirm his bias
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:28 pm to Iosh
quote:
I suspect I will be reposting this AP link roughly one bazillion times
Because there are some ignorant fricks in the world.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:33 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
you have no idea what you are posting about, just stop, its embarrassing
Well now, aren't you an inbred mother fricker?
And since you seem too dumb to comprehend, the blue line is the actual station data. Notice how in the 1930s the adjusted data (red, green lines) is lower than the actual data? And then since the 1980s, its significantly higher
The funny thing, is NOAA admits they do it, Openly. And dipshits like you think its valid science. Heres the conclusion from the unadjusted data
quote:
Warmest decade found in unadjusted GHCN data for USA was the 1930s, around 0,2 K warmer than the decade 2000-09. Warmest year found was 1934, followed by 1921 and 2006.
But you cant sell global warming with that dataset now can you?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:36 pm to Iosh
quote:
- Bates designed a new, complicated set of procedures (20 steps!) for climate data archiving which required changes in documentation and software
Why exactly was this created and why were the procedures not followed?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:36 pm to League Champs
quote:
League Champs
You've certainly poked holes in NOAA.
But the data you posted is specific to the US, right? Or is it a documentation of global temperatures?
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:43 pm to League Champs
The frick is RUTI?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:45 pm to League Champs
quote:
League Champs
dumbass I know why they do it and why its not what you think it is.
and no Im not going to tell you, do your own education.
just shut up, please.
edit to add....and btw the trends are up on every data set anyway and I dont think you quite understand what an average temperature anomaly suggests
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:46 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
dumbass I know why they do it and why its not what you think it is.
and no Im not going to tell you, do your own education.
just shut up, please.
Yeah, OK
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:52 pm to Salmon
quote:Is it that difficult?
Why do you keep asking me leading questions?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:53 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
and no Im not going to tell you, do your own education.
just shut up, please.
Is this how you "debunk" something?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:53 pm to Iosh
I'm googling and apparently RUTI is some now-defunct project set up by a bunch of WUWT commenters to use "real data" (your image dates from 2012 and their website is now a 404).
You'll excuse me for my... skepticism.
You'll excuse me for my... skepticism.
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:58 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:There it is the debate champion of all time from Hogland. I win and I won't tell you how.
dumbass I know why they do it and why its not what you think it is.
and no Im not going to tell you, do your own education.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:16 pm to Jbird
quote:
There it is the debate champion of all time from Hogland. I win and I won't tell you how.
no, im just sick of doing it over and over and over again, to have you idiots
type nuh uh
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:29 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
no, im just sick of doing it over and over and over again, to have you idiots
type nuh uh
Still not telling.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:08 pm to member12
This is very similar to the IC analysis that led to the invasion of Iraq. That Colin Powell presentation was abysmal, in hindsight.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:15 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
but evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories.
As WAS climate change
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:17 am to gthog61
quote:
Plenty of rebuttals by people who live off grants
How come nobody wants to follow the money?
Bingo!
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News