World leaders duped by manipulated global warming dataEnvironmental | 207303 hits | Feb 05 3:34 pm | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  The Mail on Sunday today reveals evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
If Obama were still in power this would quickly be buried, but he's not.
.
* Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
* The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
* Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
There's actually progress of a sort here. Warming is exaggerated, i.e. it is happening. Anybody in Canada who goes outside could tell you that.
Really? Anybody? Come knock on any door in the lower mainland right now. See what they have to say.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Weather isn't climate. Just responding is all.
The last two El Nino years were pretty nice. But they're gone.
I bet it stiffened a lot of people on the right...which is saying something as most appear to suffer from chronic erectile dysfunction (does conservatism make one a limp-dick, or does being a limp-dick make one conservative? Scientists hotly debate cause and effect).
Anyway, story debunked here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-m ... ature-rise
And here:
https://www.google.ca/amp/mashable.com/ ... ent=safari
And here:
http://grist.org/article/heres-why-the- ... l-is-bunk/
And here:
http://www.blastr.com/badastronomy/2017 ... r-happened
I debunk that you know what debunk means. As in I disagree with you.
You mean disagree not debunk. You mean those who push the global warming story disagree that it has been challenged.
So they will say things like "What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results."
Wasn't all that stuff there before Karl's paper? Sure it was. According to the IPCC, and others it said there was a pause in the warming at the time.
He mentions satellites as offering independent data showing there was no warming. I'm pretty confident that can be debunked. The corner of my eye watches what the satellite guys have been saying. I've never heard them say what your guy is claiming.
Your guy claims stuff like the satellite data validates the paper.
However If what Dr John Bates is saying is true you can't validate the paper, because the source material is gone.
Again...
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
So if they can't replicate or verify it, how can they "validate it?"
By using information they had before to come to a different conclusion than the one they signed on to at that time? Is that what they're saying? Is that your "debunking?"
Does that make sense. Did I just "debunk" you or am I just disagreeing, or is it only "debunking" when your guys say it?
Does that mean it's done then? Job over. Everything Bates might say is "debunked."
One of the global warming guys mentioned BEST. The coauthor of that seems to think there's some questions.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/resp ... mate-data/
But I do follow this stuff. I have seen this before. Right now we're in the 'circling the wagons' stage. Claims of certainty and debunking will fly around from the first wave of counters to the first claim, then the counters to the counters will come. Nothing has been "debunked." This has only just begun.
Yes, I know. I'm no climate scientist. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
But I do follow this stuff. I have seen this before. Right now we're in the 'circling the wagons' stage. Claims of certainty and debunking will fly around from the first wave of counters to the first claim, then the counters to the counters will come. Nothing has been "debunked." This has only just begun.
Here's actual video of the AGW cultists meeting today to discuss this latest setback:
Al Gore is the guy at the table.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/1 ... 18-26.html
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/ ... fake-data/