- 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: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:13 pm to Iosh
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:13 pm to Iosh
quote:The thread was 8 pages in before you realized Bates had personally laid his case out in a 4500 word piece last Saturday. Considering instead, you were citing a nitwit who literally did not know the difference between an air intake and an engine room, your notion of "shite" is fascinating.
He's already posted the laughing emoji so I think we're done here anyway
(It won't stop him from bringing this shite up again and defending it to the death in the next AGW thread)
Considering you were quoting the same nitwit as he claimed Bates denies ever saying what Bates did in fact say on Saturday, and then you made the unfortunate choice to ask me whether I was familiar with the term "hearsay", your assessment of "done" sounds just about right.
============
Just to review, here is what Bates wrote on Saturday:
quote:
When I pressed the co-authors, they said they had decided not to archive the dataset, but did not defend the decision. One of the co-authors said there were ‘some decisions [he was] not happy with’.
quote:
Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.
quote:
I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming.
So now when an apparent dumbass who doesn't understand the difference between an external air intake and an engine room seems to say Bates never 'really' said what Bates really did say, it raises questions.
3
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Speaking of not reading the thread, if you check the last page Bates now has a third interview in which he also walks back charges of data manipulation.
So now when an apparent dumbass who doesn't understand the difference between an external air intake and an engine room seems to say Bates never 'really' said what Bates really did say, it raises questions.
That's 2 out of 3. You wanna wait and try for best of 5?
This post was edited on 2/8/17 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:23 pm to NC_Tigah
Reluctantly, I must agree that this Bates motherfricker was mad because Karl didn't give him a reach-around or tickle his arse like he though Karl should, so he "retired" and went to the press to do some heavy PR damage out of spite. Now, after he looks like a huge a-hole and has lost the respect of his former colleagues, has been backtracking and acting like we all misunderstood him.
Basically, this Bates fig is about as credible as room full of lawyers and used car salesmen.
Basically, this Bates fig is about as credible as room full of lawyers and used car salesmen.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:28 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:I'm gonna start using this instead of my bullet points
Reluctantly, I must agree that this Bates motherfricker was mad because Karl didn't give him a reach-around or tickle his arse like he though Karl should, so he "retired" and went to the press to do some heavy PR damage out of spite.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:37 pm to Iosh
quote:Why?
Speaking of not reading the thread, if you check the last page Bates now has a third interview in which he also walks back charges of data manipulation.
Warmest Hystericals have been known to viciously pressure colleagues into towing the AGW-party-line. Are we looking at another case?
NOAA is going to formally investigate Karl, et al re: possible data manipulation. Why?
The science is settled. Karl is clean. How could he not be? Hell, I'm sure when we see his picture well find he has no thumbs at all, much less pressing a thumb on the scale. Why is NOAA even wasting its time?
In fact, there is no way to "walk back" a scientist with a "thumb on the scale".
Now maybe subsequent investigations will completely, totally, thoroughly exonerate Karl. Maybe we'll find Bates to be suffering from unmedicated schizophrenia. Who knows?
But to casually regard Bates observations as if they did not even happen, is prematurely dismissive. Your derision of the Daily Mail for quoting him, verbatim, is odd. Your adamant support of a piece authored an apparent imbecile doesn't work well either.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:39 pm to Iosh
You can use it without citing a source.
What suck for me, is I believe these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding. The stuff this Bates dude initially blasted to the press could be true, but now it appears to all the world that at certain times not a goddamn word of truth will come out of this motherfrickers mouth.
If he were one of my trial witnesses, I would dismiss that fricker without a second thought. There's nothing that makes me more angry than hearing the absolute truth sound like a lie because it is coming from the mouth of a lying piece of shite.
What suck for me, is I believe these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding. The stuff this Bates dude initially blasted to the press could be true, but now it appears to all the world that at certain times not a goddamn word of truth will come out of this motherfrickers mouth.
If he were one of my trial witnesses, I would dismiss that fricker without a second thought. There's nothing that makes me more angry than hearing the absolute truth sound like a lie because it is coming from the mouth of a lying piece of shite.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Except Bates is retired. You think they're putting a hit out on him or someting?
Warmest Hystericals have been known to viciously pressure colleagues
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:David Rose: Journalistic Truthsayer
Your adamant support of a piece authored an apparent imbecile doesn't work well either.
This post was edited on 2/8/17 at 11:44 pm
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:49 pm to Iosh
quote:We've seen repeated instances of AGW obsessed 'scientists' acting very unscientifically toward black-balled colleagues. Pressure can take many forms. If Bates is trying to "walk back" what appeared to be well-considered, thoughtfully constructed written comments, is it not reasonable to ask 'why'?
Except Bates is retired. You think they're putting a hit out on him or someting?
If there is no pressure, why the change?
This post was edited on 2/8/17 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 2/8/17 at 11:56 pm to Iosh
quote:I see no mention of Borenstein or Biesecker there. Did I overlook them?
Your adamant support of a piece authored an apparent imbecile doesn't work well either.
David Rose: Journalistic Truthsayer
Posted on 2/9/17 at 12:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I think it's perfectly clear why: because as a meteorologist he knows that AGW is real, and he realizes that his dick-wagging with Karl over data procedure has been blown up beyond all reasonable proportion by the "AGW is a hoax" echo chamber, where people mostly only read headlines and ledes and don't check sources or carefully parse what is actually said. FOX today was outright calling this story proof of "fake data."
If Bates is trying to "walk back" what appeared to be well-considered, thoughtfully constructed written comments, is it not reasonable to ask 'why'?
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 12:03 am
Posted on 2/9/17 at 12:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
is it not reasonable to ask 'why'?
If there is no pressure, why the change?
It really doesn't matter now.
If he was telling the truth at first (he was), he is lying now. If he's telling the truth now (he's not), he was lying when he first spoke out.
He has ZERO credibility. He is a fricking liar. Nothing he says can be trusted. He is a piece of frick. Period. We can't rely on anything that motherfricker says.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 12:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The thread was 8 pages in before you realized Bates had personally laid his case out in a 4500 word piece last Saturday.
You didn't post anything about the Bates article yourself until page 8. Now you come back on here pretended that you knew about it from the start. Your typical underhanded B.S.
What happened is you were getting dusted by another poster (which is something that you absolutely cannot tolerate) so you had to slink off and find the Bates article so you could come back and use it to try to discredit the poster that was obviously more knowledgeable than you.
quote:
Just to review, here is what Bates wrote on Saturday:
When I pressed the co-authors, they said they had decided not to archive the dataset, but did not defend the decision. One of the co-authors said there were ‘some decisions [he was] not happy with’.
This is a basic high school debate move. You state something that is an immaterial fact in such a way to imply that it supports your argument.
"One of the co-authors said there were ‘some decisions [he was] not happy with." What decisions? Did they affect the integrity of the study?
Without the answers to these further questions your statement is worthless. But you knew that when you posted it. But as long as you keep posting even worthless crap you're still in the game. Right? You haven't lost yet, right?
quote:
So now when an apparent dumbass who doesn't understand the difference between an external air intake and an engine room seems to say Bates never 'really' said what Bates really did say, it raises questions.
Here's your problem. You think that raising questions --without providing any substantive backup -- is enough to carry the day. But your problem is that this is not one of the normal bullsh!t inane political topics that are routinely bantered endlessly back and forth on these boards. This is a science-based argument. Raising questions doesn't substantiate your position.
I posted an article in a reply to one of your previous posts by someone who was involved directly in working on the Karl study and that was critical of the Bates Climate Etc. article.
I'll post the link again. If you don't post refuting the article, we can then assume you agree with the points its author made.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 1:50 am
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
Speaking of not reading the thread, if you check the last page Bates now has a third interview in which he also walks back charges of data manipulation.
quote:
Why?
Warmest Hystericals have been known to viciously pressure colleagues into towing the AGW-party-line. Are we looking at another case?
No.No. This is a science-based discussion. What evidence do you have that the author was pressured to tow the party line? You can't disprove something by simply repeating the "fake news" mantra.
quote:
NOAA is going to formally investigate Karl, et al re: possible data manipulation.
I'm sure you have a link to prove that. I'll wait for you to post it. (Hint: Don't waste too much time looking - because it's not true).
quote:
Your derision of the Daily Mail for quoting him, verbatim, is odd. Your adamant support of a piece authored an apparent imbecile doesn't work well either.
Another of your classic ad hominem finishes. Tell us, who the the "apparent imbecile", and why is he an imbecile - other than it is apparent to you.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:16 am to Bullethead88
It's the journalist who used "inside the engine room" instead of "engine room intake." A hanging offense to be sure.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:45 am to NC_Tigah
I know in your own mind you think you are holding your own in all of this, but maybe you should take the time to re-read the posts by a third party poster (KaiserSoze99) who has been following your diatribe in this thread.
Keep in mind that initially he was convinced that "these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding."
KaiserSoze99:
"What suck for me, is I believe these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding. The stuff this Bates dude initially blasted to the press could be true, but now it appears to all the world that at certain times not a goddamn word of truth will come out of this motherfrickers mouth.
If he were one of my trial witnesses, I would dismiss that fricker without a second thought. There's nothing that makes me more angry than hearing the absolute truth sound like a lie because it is coming from the mouth of a lying piece of shite."
"To sum this up, he questioned whether the paper should have been released without also, simultaneously providing supporting data to allow peer review?"
"This Bates motherfricker was, in essence, a jilted lover who went on a tirade about fricked up data manipulation, only to backpedal when he calmed down and realized what an assclown he made of himself. Does that about sum this up?"
NC_Tigah:
"We've seen repeated instances of AGW obsessed 'scientists' acting very unscientifically toward black-balled colleagues. Pressure can take many forms. If Bates is trying to "walk back" what appeared to be well-considered, thoughtfully constructed written comments, is it not reasonable to ask 'why'?
If there is no pressure, why the change?"
KaiserSoze99:
"It really doesn't matter now.
If he was telling the truth at first (he was), he is lying now. If he's telling the truth now (he's not), he was lying when he first spoke out.
He has ZERO credibility. He is a fricking liar. Nothing he says can be trusted. He is a piece of frick. Period. We can't rely on anything that motherfricker says."
Keep in mind that initially he was convinced that "these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding."
KaiserSoze99:
"What suck for me, is I believe these frickers are manipulating data to show warming and get funding. The stuff this Bates dude initially blasted to the press could be true, but now it appears to all the world that at certain times not a goddamn word of truth will come out of this motherfrickers mouth.
If he were one of my trial witnesses, I would dismiss that fricker without a second thought. There's nothing that makes me more angry than hearing the absolute truth sound like a lie because it is coming from the mouth of a lying piece of shite."
"To sum this up, he questioned whether the paper should have been released without also, simultaneously providing supporting data to allow peer review?"
"This Bates motherfricker was, in essence, a jilted lover who went on a tirade about fricked up data manipulation, only to backpedal when he calmed down and realized what an assclown he made of himself. Does that about sum this up?"
NC_Tigah:
"We've seen repeated instances of AGW obsessed 'scientists' acting very unscientifically toward black-balled colleagues. Pressure can take many forms. If Bates is trying to "walk back" what appeared to be well-considered, thoughtfully constructed written comments, is it not reasonable to ask 'why'?
If there is no pressure, why the change?"
KaiserSoze99:
"It really doesn't matter now.
If he was telling the truth at first (he was), he is lying now. If he's telling the truth now (he's not), he was lying when he first spoke out.
He has ZERO credibility. He is a fricking liar. Nothing he says can be trusted. He is a piece of frick. Period. We can't rely on anything that motherfricker says."
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:50 am to Bullethead88
I generally read all posts and find his amusing, yes
Posted on 2/9/17 at 7:37 am to Bullethead88
quote:I actually didn't post in the thread at all until one or your uninformed fellow warmists claimed geophysical climate was better determined in 10's of years rather than 100's. Ignoring the fact we are in an ice age (presumably out of ignorance), he expressed we need not account for prehistoric temperature patterns in order to understand climate change. That kind of stupidity is central to patent ignorance driving antiscience warmist hysteria. I replied as much.
You didn't post anything about the Bates article yourself until page 8.
Though that poster dropped out 1 page later, another thread participant, Iosh, presumably tried to help the guy out. Within a couple of posts we had this exchange
quote:My presumption was that anyone engaging the OP thru this thread would have understood origin of the DailyMail quotes. I was wrong. Wasn't that big a deal. Folks miss things. Iosh is a bright poster. I respect his POV. So I let it ride. Later though, when he chose to get snarky about the exchange, I reengaged.quote:Unless you personally have a recording of your conversation with him, you got them from the Mail.
The quotes I provided were from John Bates.
As far as your nugatory view of that exchange, you're entitled to it. It is what it is.
quote:
I posted an article in a reply to one of your previous posts by someone who was involved directly in working on the Karl study and that was critical of the Bates Climate Etc. article.
quote:It is an oddly feckless diatribe. First, it is not clear your guy even worked at NOAA. Did he? Or did he work at CICS in Asheville. In terms of his statements, in two sentences this fellow first denies Bates knew what he was talking about. Then he follows by directly confirming veracity of Bates' claims, albeit ascribing different motivations. In fact, he goes on to basically do the same thing throughout his entire piece.
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.
I think it is wise that NOAA not dismiss criticism out-of-hand (as your link attempts), and review its processes based on this controversy, as it apparently plans to do.
Don't you agree?
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 7:40 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 2:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
The quotes I provided were from John Bates.
Unless you personally have a recording of your conversation with him, you got them from the Mail.
My presumption was that anyone engaging the OP thru this thread would have understood origin of the DailyMail quotes.
That's not true. You couldn't have "presumed" that the DailyMail quotes came from the Bates blog article because the Daily Mail article clearly states that its Bates quotes allegedly came directly from an interview with Bates.
quote:
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper
Also, you lied about the article I posted and shamed you into addressing. The article is critical of Bates and gives specific facts disputing Bates' allegation against the Karl paper. You just flat out lied and said that the author of my article agreed with Bates.
quote:
In terms of his statements, in two sentences this fellow first denies Bates knew what he was talking about. Then he follows by directly confirming veracity of Bates' claims
Here is what that article said about Bates' key criticisms of Karl's paper:
quote:
Bates:They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]'
Response: v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the [Bates] article is demonstrably incorrect.
Bates: 'they had used a 'highly experimental early run' of a programme that tried to combine two previously seperate sets of records'
Response: Karl et al used as the land basis the ISTI databank. This databank combined in excess of 50 unique underlying sources into an amalgamated set of holdings. The code used to perform the merge was publically available, the method published, and internally approved. This statement therefore is demonstrably false.
Two last items. Bates could have made his criticisms made know through official scientific community channels, but instead he chose to "publish" his opinions by way of a blog post. Very brave of him. Also, instead of giving an interview to one of the relevant science publications, he chose to go to to the DailyMail -- a British tabloid with zero credibility.
Finally, there might be a far more common and personal motive for Bates to take a run at Karl's paper. Bates was administratively admonished and relieved of a supervisory position at NCEI in 2012, at a time when Karl was the head of the NCEI center.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News