1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

NOAA scientist blows the whistle on NOAA

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by dogtowner, Feb 6, 2017.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,647
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    No one is marginalizing a scientist, just his conclusions. If his conclusions don't match the facts and observations, then his conclusions will be rejected.
     
  2. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Hi Mate, I think they did manipulate the data...
     
  3. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,647
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    at least one person is accusing them of having done so.
    I suppose, since there are dozens of organizations worldwide using the same data, it wouldn't be too hard to see whether NOAA has different conclusions than its counterparts around the world.
     
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    They weren't rejected they were published as the Karl Study (K13) and presented for the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015
     
    Pandora likes this.
  5. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    NOAA is supposed to be a respected organisation and its output goes into "group think" as being supposedly "authoratitive" and having gone through rigorous review - which this did not. If they just wanted to peddle shit then okay they they should just make a press announcement "hey guys, here's more shit we produced to go along with all the other shit in the climate fiasco".
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,362
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    This is well documented as they do it regularly.
     
    Pandora likes this.
  7. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,647
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    and so, if they're indeed "peddling shit", then their conclusions will be at odds with the other scientific organizations around the world.
     
  8. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,362
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    And they are.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,647
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Really?
    So, the consensus that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing and that humans are accelerating the process is no longer a consensus? Which organizations are drawing different conclusions?
     
  10. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I think the point is more to do with the mechanisims, data, interpreting of the data and the conclusions drawn. The conclusions drive the debate and the debate results in the expenditure of $billions which is ultimately derived from the taxpayer. One of the issues (one of many) seems to be how data sets are dealt with and the extrapolation of that for future trends. The majority of the planet is ocean and data sets prior to the 1980's is extremely limited in terms of quantity and value - its only recently that accurate satallite, buoy and shipbourne data has become avaliable therefore one of the issues is how the management and utilisation of that limited data is used to conclude a trend.

     
  11. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Who's consensus? Consensus does not imply reality
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2017
    Pandora likes this.
  12. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,362
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    East Anglia's has been walking it back with Michael Mann. It was their idea to begin with.
    NOAA is the only one trying to hold the line and it appears they're done with that now that there is no political pressure.
    Why do you think BO had to have something from NOAA for Paris ?
     
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Interesting isn't it. I haven't seen these before..
     
  14. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,647
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Of course not, but the argument was that NOAA had manipulated data. If that is so, then it follows that their conclusions would vary from those of the other scientific organizations. If NOAA is the only one that believes in a particular conclusion, then that's evidence that they did manipulate data. If their conclusions are the same, then that's an indication that the manipulation of data story is false.
     
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I think we're back where we started?
     
    Pandora likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page