The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on February 05, 2017, 10:25:24 pm
-
NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Climate Change Look Worse
February 5, 2017| by Robert Gehl
A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.
Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told the Daily Mail NOAA’s 2015 study was meant “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,” The Daily Caller is reporting.
Bates said NOAA scientists made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998. The Daily Mail claims Bates showed it “irrefutable” evidence NOAA’s study relied on “unverified” data.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/noaa-scientists-manipulated-temperature-data-to-make-climate-change-look-worse
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg)
Sickening, if true.
-
hah hah do tell. What else is new? If the AGW movement were any more full of shat, it would be Barack Hussein Obama's presidential library. What a bunch of clowns-without-make-up. This should send Jerry Brown out to spit and fume at "Climate Deniers" with a fart-sucker crammed up his own rear, scowling with derision at "those who mock Climate Change".
(https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Cartoon-Climate-Change-Threats.jpg)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg)
Sickening, if true.
You act like this is something new, Suppressed. You weren't sickened by all of the other ones, but this one is just too much, huh !?! Would you like a list of all twenty-five major scandals? Where exactly do you go when you are "out of town"? To the Moon or the Black Hole of Calcutta? To have your memory wiped by electroshock therapy? I mean, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, man !?!
-
You act like this is something new, Suppressed. You weren't sickened by all of the other ones, but this one is just too much, huh !?! Would you like a list of all twenty-five major scandals? Where exactly do you go when you are "out of town"? To the Moon or the Black Hole of Calcutta? To have your memory wiped by electroshock therapy? I mean, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, man !?!
No need to be so rude to someone who's on the same side.
-
I'm SHOCKED!!!
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/800x424+0+12/resize/660x350!/format/jpg/quality/85/https://s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/4291572604b9dc00b4f95a70aa291569/203150985/homealone.jpg)
-
No need to be so rude to someone who's on the same side.
All due respect O (and that is great) Suppressed has consistently ignored my very substantive posts on another thread concerning this topic. He disagreed with my own posted information and without provocation, insulted me by claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about. He then tried to push the notion of carbon-driven downward radiative forcing, which is part-and-parcel of AGW dicta. When I demonstrated complete understanding of the latter topic, he did not apologize for the insult. So I would venture to say that in this case, if there is undue rudeness to be accounted for it is not from me.
I've said my piece and have no intention of carrying it any further as a personal issue. But if I hear BS, get broadsided by a fellow poster who is ostensibly "on my side" then get no apology nor correction, I reserve the right to call them on it.
You say that Suppressed is "on our side" but if he really were on the side of truth, why would he behave like that?
-
All due respect O (and that is great) Suppressed has consistently ignored my very substantive posts on another thread concerning this topic. He disagreed with my own posted information and without provocation, insulted me by claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about. He then tried to push the notion of carbon-driven downward radiative forcing, which is part-and-parcel of AGW dicta. When I demonstrated complete understanding of the latter topic, he did not apologize for the insult. So I would venture to say that in this case, if there is undue rudeness to be accounted for it is not from me.
I've said my piece and have no intention of carrying it any further as a personal issue. But if I hear BS, get broadsided by a fellow poster who is ostensibly "on my side" then get no apology nor correction, I reserve the right to call them on it.
You say that Suppressed is "on our side" but if he really were on the side of truth, why would he behave like that?
With all due respect, I don't think his short post merited that response. But that's just me.
-
You act like this is something new, Suppressed. You weren't sickened by all of the other ones, but this one is just too much, huh !?! Would you like a list of all twenty-five major scandals? Where exactly do you go when you are "out of town"? To the Moon or the Black Hole of Calcutta? To have your memory wiped by electroshock therapy? I mean, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, man !?!
I thought you weren't going to bother me anymore. Why do you keep breaking that promise?
-
You act like this is something new, Suppressed. You weren't sickened by all of the other ones, but this one is just too much, huh !?! Would you like a list of all twenty-five major scandals? Where exactly do you go when you are "out of town"? To the Moon or the Black Hole of Calcutta? To have your memory wiped by electroshock therapy? I mean, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, man !?!
You suggest I'm the one for psychiatric treatment, when you're the one obsessed with my personal and professional life?! Well, since you evidently don't have much of your own, I'll oblige you and let you know that I was at a scientific conference.
Now, think back to the last scientific conference you attended -- you might have just played on your laptop or phone, but I attend them to accomplish things. When I'm not attending the technical or poster sessions, I use the opportunity to attend receptions and network, for the chance to exchange information and ideas -- especially with international colleagues. Finally, on evenings where I didn't just chow down at the nicely furnished receptions, I sampled the local cuisine and nightlife.
I'd say that I'm SO sorry I didn't take time out to respond to your bizarre tirades, but, frankly, I'm not.
There... satisfied?
(Note...I insulted you only after you began with the circus act...)
-
And this coming from the most 'scientific' arm of the federal bureaucracy.
No wonder when normal people hear the claim from idiots like AlGore "The science of Global Warming is Settled", they do not believe the charlatans.
-
You suggest I'm the one for psychiatric treatment, when you're the one obsessed with my personal and professional life?! Well, since you evidently don't have much of your own, I'll oblige you and let you know that I was at a scientific conference.
Now, think back to the last scientific conference you attended -- you might have just played on your laptop or phone, but I attend them to accomplish things. When I'm not attending the technical or poster sessions, I use the opportunity to attend receptions and network, for the chance to exchange information and ideas -- especially with international colleagues. Finally, on evenings where I didn't just chow down at the nicely furnished receptions, I sampled the local cuisine and nightlife.
I'd say that I'm SO sorry I didn't take time out to respond to your bizarre tirades, but, frankly, I'm not.
There... satisfied?
(Note...I insulted you only after you began with the circus act...)
hah hah More insults. Circus act? You admit that you insulted me instead of answering substantively because you, in your arrogant lunacy, deemed my very substantive posts a "circus act". Great excuse for not responding substantively. I call BS.
Here is what happened. Suppressed got scared and reacted defensively likely because he's apparently not used to being challenged directly by equally-informed people. He tries to cow people with minutiae and abstruse verbiage and it works much of the time. But not on me. I easily refuted the argument supporting carbon-driven downward radiative forcing. Then Suppressed panicked. Instead of responding substantively (which he still hasn't done), he resigned from the discussion and (coincidentally ) suddenly "left town" for three weeks to rub elbows with the great and the near great (which he then came back and bragged about over and over again as if my own challenge is beneath his lofty station heh) .
Clearly that rapid evacuation from the forum was not a coincidence but because Suppressed had no substantive answer to the challenge. Now he AGAIN refuses to answer the carbon-driven downward radiative forcing response and to avoid revealing his defeat, starts insulting me again. Now I am according to him, conducting a "circus" and so am unworthy of a substantively response. hah hah nice evasion.
In psychology we call that "defensive behavior". It is a very transparent method to avoid admitting ignorance or error used by insecure / arrogant people. Bob and weave but don't respond directly. Also used in trial law. Common garden variety evasion. Witness is unresponsive.
Don't bother trying to answer now. You have committed to taking refuge in those common evasions - credentialism and vituperation. Easier to try to stultify and attack your opponent than to respond substantively. I get it. That or maybe you could try the other favored method of people evading a substantive exchange, insisting that you have responded directly already. I might go with that one if I were you. It suits your proclivity to obfuscate much better.
Circus act certainly describes the entire mendacious, self-adoring panoply of conceited sophomores with hard science degrees who are too arrogant to invite people with non-technical degrees into the decision-making process. Such types avoid responding when challenged by fleeing for weeks with the lame excuse that they are "out of town" and "too busy" to respond. hah hah Such transparent BS.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention Walter White, the word "scientist" has lost the immunity to being questioned the left has invested in it. People with technical degrees or job titles are not priests who may look down on "commners" with disdain, so come down from your lofty BS/avoidance of normal back-and-forth and participate in the forum. Take your "credentialsm" excuse and put it away somewhere with the excessive egotism.
I'll gladly debate you on another thread point by point so that you can demonstrate your own trapeze skills and semantic acrobatics. Unless of course you are "too busy" (rolls eyes) or too superior to respond substantively. In which case you should not post.