NOAA scientist blows the whistle on NOAA

Werbung:
OMG! It's a conspiracy by NOAA et. al. to dupe all of the world leaders! What's behind this sensational story?


The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.

and the paper was flawed because:

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

Dr. Bates, the "whistleblower" didn't like the evaluation process.

Yep. That proves it. Global warming is a hoax, shown by the current years being just normal years... what? Hottest on record?

Well, then, it's time to shift the discussion from "the Earth isn't heating up" to "of course it is, but humans aren't responsible."
 
Dr. Bates, the "whistleblower" didn't like the evaluation process.
.... not quite
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...files/documents/NOAA Karl Study One-Pager.pdf
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...files/documents/NOAA Karl Study One-Pager.pdf
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
 
OMG! It's a conspiracy by NOAA et. al. to dupe all of the world leaders! What's behind this sensational story?




and the paper was flawed because:



Dr. Bates, the "whistleblower" didn't like the evaluation process.

Yep. That proves it. Global warming is a hoax, shown by the current years being just normal years... what? Hottest on record?

Well, then, it's time to shift the discussion from "the Earth isn't heating up" to "of course it is, but humans aren't responsible."
Dr Bates the whistle blower wrote the NOAA evaluation process and it was not followed.
NOAA put out a paper that even NOAA knew was wrong to satisfy political demands.
They were the last group subject to this. Everyone else gas been walking back.
 
Dr Bates the whistle blower wrote the NOAA evaluation process and it was not followed.
NOAA put out a paper that even NOAA knew was wrong to satisfy political demands.
They were the last group subject to this. Everyone else gas been walking back.
The proof of whether warming continued during the supposed hiatus lies in current temperatures.
 
it's just the rest of the scientific community

And not only in the USA, all scientist in the whole world:

In Austria we gather weather data since 1760. We have the oldest meteorological service in the world (since 1851). They see a rise of nearly 2 degree Celsius in the Alps over the last 100 years. Thats locally gathered data and therefore no need for a NASA conspiracy theory.

You can download their data from here:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/de/klima/informationsportal-klimawandel/daten-download
http://zamg.ac.at/histalp/
Daily data goes back to 1948, monthly data goes back to 1760.
 
So, it's just the rest of the scientific community that is fudging data to make their case while the leaders are discussing global warming.
I was thinking that we could parse that a littel...
"people lie so that the leaders can discuss global warming"

I think the point should be why did NOAA feel they had to manipulate data and how did they think they would get away with it? If all they wanted to do was lobby for the Obama administration then why expend vast amounts of time and money, employing scientists and analysts all they needed to do was copy other peoples skewed research from the internet.
 
that's how you carry out a conspiracy involving dozens of scientific agencies and several governments. Good to know.

If I understand you correctly, yeah I guess that’s about right. Think about it, a lone scientist that attempts to contradict the inviolable "truths" of the establishments view of warming doctrine, were the established participants intuitively grasp the value of such “group think”, suddenly marks that scientist as a dangerous outsider and one who must be marginalized, discredited or broken. Most of the articles written about this guy attached the term "whistleblower" to him which within a profession always carries a negative connotation.
 
Werbung:
I was thinking that we could parse that a littel...
"people lie so that the leaders can discuss global warming"

I think the point should be why did NOAA feel they had to manipulate data and how did they think they would get away with it? If all they wanted to do was lobby for the Obama administration then why expend vast amounts of time and money, employing scientists and analysts all they needed to do was copy other peoples skewed research from the internet.
No one manipulated data. The facts simply don't support that opinion.
 
Back
Top