re: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data

quote:

---

I'm about to head to the natural history museum in London, anything you morons want me to ask them since you won't actually persue any real research on this issue on your own?

---

Ask them why they aren't publicly demanding a worldwide moratorium on immigration from low greenhouse gas producing nations (ie: Mexico - 3.9 tonnes per capita annually, Syria - 3.0 tonnes, India - 1.6 tonnes, Nigeria - 0.5 tonnes) to high-greenhouse gas producing nations (US - 17.5 tonnes, Canada - 14.7 tonnes, Germany - 9.0 tonnes, UK - 8.0 tonnes).

The above is responsible for almost all of the growth in greenhouse emissions over the past couple of decades. Seems like they'd want to put a stop to that if they were truly concerned with AGW.

quote:

---

I never understood why they always have to "adjust" the data, isn't the data the data

---

It isn't so much adjusted as the data is selected to be used, and data that doesn't fit the narrative is either not used at all or marginalized.

The best man at my wedding does Atmospheric studies for NASA. He's on some of those papers you warming enthusiasts love so much and that's what they do. They get a grant to study why the earth is warming, and they present the data that supports the most concrete "proof" that it is.

If it bleeds it leads is the mantra of the media, and that certainly is true as well of global warming presentations.

What though rarely if ever gets mentioned is how the climate has reacted past the last 150 years.

Why? Because that destroys the narrative that pays them.

"Warmest temperature on record"
Laughably false, but no one ever challenges this. Our that the planet is at one of the coldest periods in the last 600 million years, which right now seems to be about as far back as they can estimate with any degree of confidence.

"Fastest warming ever"
Anyone who says that doesn't appear to have ever heard of something known as the Minoan warming. Which btw according to ice core studies was about 2.5 degrees C warmer than now.

The fact is the planet will warm up, quite a bit over the next few years. Few as in few million, which is a small fraction of the planets history.

These idiots are telling you that only about .003% of the global history matters (and that's just the last 600 million years). They get away with it because most people don't bother to check.

quote:

---

Oh for Gods sake, the guy saw the data. Its manipulated. How the frick do you have any clue how the data was used? You, like everyone else, only get to see the manipulated data.

---

The raw ocean data is available on ICOADS and has been forever. The ERSST data sets are derived from that.

Of course, you should be careful about wanting scientists to use the raw ICOADS data without any adjustments....

quote:

---

Is this what you consider science

---

Rigging computer models with fake data to accomplish the desired outcome.... I that what YOU consider science?

quote:

---

Weird that you're asserting that I haven't read it while asking questions that make it clear you haven't.

---

LoL, Youre googling tactics are starting to catch up to you.

The data in the pausebuster paper is being revised as we speak. Per the author. Which means it does not match up to your link. Otherwise it wouldn't need to be revised

The computer program is also being 'fixed' as we speak. Per the lead author. Meaning nothing in the pausebuster paper can be relied upon to garner conclusions. Or policy

I quoted 3 sources earlier that have not been skeptics in the past, who are now concerned over the whistleblowers comments. But youre not. Which tells me that you are worthless in the field of science, if all you do is spout off areas of confirmation bias. You cannot read that article and not be concerned. Oh and this:

quote:

---

Dr. John J Bates
Principal Scientist
National Climatic Data Center
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

The National Climatic Data Center (ncdc.noaa.gov) is a world leader in the climate community. Part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, it holds the world's largest collection of environmental data. The NCDC provides the historical overview of weather for regions, offering vital analysis about climate variability and change necessary for strategic planning in all aspects of commerce and daily life.

Dr. Bates' technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. He has authored over 45 publications and has been involved in major national and international programs devoted to the study of meteorological science. Bates received his Bachelor of Science degree in meteorology in 1976 at Florida State University. He received his Masters of Science degree in meteorology in 1982 as well as his Doctor of Philosophy in meteorology in 1986 at University of Wisconsin, Madison.

---

Yeah, he was in the room

quote:

---

LoL, Youre googling tactics are starting to catch up to you.

The data in the pausebuster paper is being revised as we speak. Per the author. Which means it does not match up to your link. Otherwise it wouldn't need to be revised

The computer program is also being 'fixed' as we speak. Per the lead author. Meaning nothing in the pausebuster paper can be relied upon to garner conclusions. Or policy

I quoted 3 sources earlier that have not been skeptics in the past, who are now concerned over the whistleblowers comments. But youre not. Which tells me that you are worthless in the field of science, if all you do is spout off areas of confirmation bias. You cannot read that article and not be concerned.

---

The fact that they're working on ERSST v5 isn't particularly newsworthy. They revise these data sets periodically, that's why there's a v3, v4, etc. Same with the land record (GHCN-M) which I think is on v3. I'd be more concerned if they didn't iterate these things.

There also doesn't appear to be a named source for the assertion that these mysterious new datasets will reduce the warming trend, since Rose switches to passive and says "this newspaper has learnt" and doesn't attribute that to Bates.

I'm not sure what you mean by "3 sources." You've quoted Lamar Smith, a known skeptic, Judith Curry, a known skeptic, and the journal editor Jeremy Berg, who didn't say he was concerned, he said Bates raises concerns, and that they would look into it. Which you would expect them to do.

Just quoting his CV doesn't prove he was in the room for the K15 paper. I'm sure the guy is a qualified meteorologist. But NOAA employs thousands of qualified meteorologists. They divide responsibilities among working groups just like any other large organization. His gripe seems to be that Karl's group didn't adopt the particular standards he had created for archiving data. Maybe his standards are better, maybe they're not. But the standards Karl did use were sufficient for BEST (an independent group unaffiliated with NOAA) to confirm his results with satellite-only and buoy-only records.

In a case where there's independent confirmation of the methodology I'm inclined to believe that gripes about the particular administrative process by which the data is archived are just that.

Another "denier"

quote:

---

The fundamental problem with climate science today is simple.

No governments are funding skeptic research.

---

Is that some kind of stupid joke, or do you really believe in a thing called "skeptic research"?

Also, has no one else noticed that the data presented in the OP still show a warming trend?

quote:

---

I was in Iceland while a guy sat there and told me

---

That damn well settles it then. A guy told you . . . .