NOAA scientist blows the whistle on NOAA

The Scotsman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Werbung:
PLC1 said:
No one manipulated data. The facts simply don't support that opinion.
Click to expand...
Hi Mate, I think they did manipulate the data...
I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort 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.
Click to expand...
 
The Scotsman said:
Hi Mate, I think they did manipulate the data...
Click to expand...
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.
 
PLC1 said:
it wouldn't be too hard to see whether NOAA has different conclusions than its counterparts around the world.
Click to expand...
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".
 
The Scotsman said:
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".
Click to expand...
and so, if they're indeed "peddling shit", then their conclusions will be at odds with the other scientific organizations around the world.
 
PLC1 said:
So, the consensus that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing and that humans are accelerating the process is no longer a consensus?
Click to expand...
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.

I’m not sure how we will ever sort out the issues in the historical record prior to about 1980, and especially during WWII and prior to 1920. But the more vexing issue is the discrepancies in the recent record — the last two decades and even the last 5 years. Sorting these issues out, with comprehensive assessment of errors and uncertainties in the record, is very important. Eventually we will be able to rely on coupled atmosphere-ocean data assimilation systems to produce global values of SST (and we will be able to go backwards in time also). But coupled data assimilation systems are in their infancy.
Click to expand...
 
PLC1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
dogtowner said:
East Anglia's has been walking it back with Michael Mann.
Click to expand...
Interesting isn't it. I haven't seen these before..
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
Click to expand...
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
Click to expand...
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
The Scotsman said:
Who's consensus? Consensus does not imply reality
Click to expand...
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.
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

asur
ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones admits no Global Warming
2 3
Replies
34
Views
6K
mark francis
M
Dr.Who
Freedom versus the Nanny
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dr.Who
Dr.Who
B
Fiddler’s Wages and the Golden Parachute
Replies
0
Views
1K
bwana
B
Back
Top