Somebody got some splainin' to do.
Somebody got some splainin' to do.
Least shocking news of all time. Ivar Giaever warned about this just last year. Will be interesting to see if there is any reaction at all to this (my guess is no). People who believe in global warming/climate change probably won't care about this or will just say "oh it's just one paper there's still plenty of other evidence". No, this happens all the time. Maybe if you read past the alarmist headline or most popular facebook comment you would read the facts and see the truth. If you still believe in this hoax at this point you are honestly retarded.
Fake news
[l]None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
So they put out a bunch of misinformation and then deleted the source data to hide their shenanigans.
Like I said, there's no science in Global Warming.
The IPCC is hopelessly corrupt.
The NOAA is hopelessly corrupt.
Defund them.
FakeNews wrote:
Fake news
At the very least, redundant here on LRC.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8045006Global warming is over. Trump will replace the NOAA administrators and all the fake global warming data will be exposed.
Blah Blah Blah. wrote:
Global warming is over. Trump will replace the NOAA administrators and all the fake global warming data will be exposed.
Al Gore is 68; he rode this train long enough to get rich and retire more than comfortably with a net worth of $200,000,000+ and an energy-sucking, beachfront home.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/how-al-gores-net-worth-caught-mitt-romneysNumberFudger wrote:
Somebody got some splainin' to do.
Here's a link with "some splainin'" from a researcher who recently published a paper using independent data and methods corroborating the NOAA data set.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-riseAs an aside, I have a certain admiration for the way some climate disinformers string together a series of selected truths which mislead without strictly making counterfactual statements. David Rose has walked this line in the past, but in this case at least, doesn't seem to bother.
Stuff to talk about wrote:
Blah Blah Blah. wrote:Global warming is over. Trump will replace the NOAA administrators and all the fake global warming data will be exposed.
Global warming was probably the biggest scam in science ever.
Stuff to talk about wrote:
Al Gore is 68; he rode this train long enough
Trump is 74; he keeps riding the train powered by "green-coal"...
I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
Chappie the movie wrote:
I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
so, you are okay that in less than 400 years the earth will be uninhabitable for people; less than a mere blip on the earth life-clock.
Chappie the movie wrote:
I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
I spotted a post within the last month or three from someone saying he thought climate change would probably kill his kids.
Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel wrote:
Chappie the movie wrote:I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
I spotted a post elsewhere on the web within the last month or three from someone saying he thought climate change would probably kill his kids.
^ clarification.
NumberFudger wrote:
Somebody got some splainin' to do.
I'm sure some climate-bots will instantly spin this however they like... BUT fail to address the real issues that are raised (independent of any conclusions).
Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.
I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
There's a reason why few people trust climate science, and similarly that the general populace finds it "unpersuasive" - the above is good guide as to why.
Meta-science analyst wrote:
There's a reason why I DO NOT trust climate science.
^clarified
Meta-science analyst wrote:
There's a reason why few people trust climate science, and similarly that the general populace finds it "unpersuasive" - the above is good guide as to why.
Meta-science analyst wrote:There's a reason why I DO NOT trust climate science.
^clarified
Actually, my alter ego, you are wrong. I personally have more trust in climate science than the polls indicate for the general populace.
Meta-science analyst wrote:
There's a reason why few people trust climate science, and similarly that the general populace finds it "unpersuasive" - the above is good guide as to why.
Of course there's a reason a significant number of people distrust climate science and it's broadly down to disinformation peddled by political actors.
The link I provided up thread gives evidence for why NOAA's updates are an improvement in the product and why the Daily Mail article is a rather distorted version of reality.
The following link gives some insight into the NOAA process which "the whistle blower" questions and includes link to the ERSSTv4 raw data that the Daily Mail writer claims was not released. The data and methods was already available to the general public (since late 2014) when Senator Lamar Smith subpoenaed NOAA to provide the data (in 2016).
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.de/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.htmlany science that is incompatible with republican interests should be "defunded." Democrats would respond to allegations of fixing data by firing people and changing vetting procedures for scientific refereeing. Republicans respond by eliminating the funding for the inconvenient sciences. We all know very well that there are thousands of papers corroborating anthropogenic climate change. The record temperatures last year have not gone away.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Of course there's a reason a significant number of people distrust climate science and it's broadly down to disinformation peddled by political actors.
The fact that you deliberately dodge the gravamen of the Bates complaint --- NOAA breached its own scientific integrity rules; a fundamental change needs to take place; NOAA falsely claimed no internal complaints were made --- again speaks to the deceitfulness.
The link I provided up thread gives evidence for why NOAA's updates are an improvement in the product and why the Daily Mail article is a rather distorted version of reality.
This, however, does not address the problem that the scientific integrity rules were breached in the preparation of the original paper. Moreover, the "improved product" in the alternative paper, whatever its technical aspects, seems (at this stage) to have many of the same problems as the old one vis-a-vis scientific verifiability.
The following link gives some insight into the NOAA process which "the whistle blower" questions and includes link to the ERSSTv4 raw data that the Daily Mail writer claims was not released. The data and methods was already available to the general public (since late 2014) when Senator Lamar Smith subpoenaed NOAA to provide the data (in 2016).
This, however, does not address the problem that NOAA falsely claimed that no internal complaints were made.
More directly, can you/anyone make responsive answers to the questions that are raised by Bates, instead of talking about how things have evolved since then?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!