NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

It came from the Mail article by Bates and Rose cited in post 2. The article comes from both of them and throwing one of them under the bus does not redeem the other.

 

So basically you still don't know.

 

I know the graph was fake, and the deniers dependency on fake data tell me they know they are wrong.

 

Basically you dismiss everything because of a mistake. No sense in thinking if you don't have too.

 

It was more than a mistake, it was deliberate! Bates and Rose used data with 2 different baselines when they made their graph. If they are too stupid to know that is a MAJOR NO NO, then neither is qualified to report on global warming data.

 

You don't even know that as a fact but then facts are not important in protecting the political narrative.

 

Actually I do. Hadley uses the 30 year 1961 to 1990 baseline and NOAA uses the 100 year 1901 to 2000 baseline. It is listed on all their data from both places. The only honest way to compare the two data sets is to use either the 30 year or 100 year baseline for both. When you do they match up almost identically. Since the Bates/Rose article graph implies that the Hadley data is the unaltered data I will post the fake Bates/Rose graph and under it a graph using the Hadley baseline for both.

 

The work in the paper has been verified by independent researchers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...onfirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming

Dr. Bates was not involved in the work in question. This calls into question his understanding of the work that went into the paper.
There are also claims that the scientists who wrote the paper deliberately chose "low quality" data for their work. This has also been disproved.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1

Additional verification:
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html

 

Here are posts from Bates and Curry. These give more details on the real issues involved in the handling of data that Bates has identified.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

 

That pretty much says it all and shows what a complete hoax this entire AGW fad is.

 

Also the fake argument about the baseline is over 0.12 deg C. If you look at the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrumentation ...... ??

 

This whole thread is just the usual braindead denier cult fraudulent propaganda drivel, based only on the stupidity, ignorance and gullility of the thoroughly bamboozled rightwingnuts.

In the real world....

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

 

And yet, here you are. Brain deader for your participation no doubt. I would remind that having posted what is more commonly referred to as the tabloid reporting to support your assertions of superiority, don't you suppose that for such a grand opinion of your own perception of self that this tactic is at least somewhat self defeating?

Evidently, you don't realize what specifically you're attacking, but attack you have. One wonders why? Do you suppose that some of that massive cash hoard the climate change folks are attempting to extort somehow gets to you? Magic happens and you get a stipend just for you? How utterly laughable.

 

Well, that is all distortion and lies. To think that a scientific organization with "sister agencies" around the world and in every developed country would all be "in cahoots" with a conspiracy of such magnitude is laughable in it's naive gullibility.

 

You say that like you have an authority here, and completely ignores the words of those who actively participate in this daily. I would point you to the leaded emails from the East Anglia folks. Clearly, collusion happens. non supporting voices are dogmatically and systematically eliminated in the world science press. So, you assert this as if you believe that no one is aware of the above. It's laughable.

 

Hey, facts are facts. No one ever said each and every university, agency, club, newspaper, pundit, or scientist would all be on board with climate change. But facts are facts and the fact is that the vast vast majority of scientists from every country agree on AGW.

But tell me, assuming that the teeny tiny insignificant minority is correct, what is the motivation of the majority to spread false information?

 

You say facts are facts, and yet you're willing to propagate non factual assertions, ie your assertion about "vast vast'.... I believe there is a simple answer. Money. The ability to receive grant funding to continue not actually working for a living, and engaging in otherwise purposeless pursuits that deliver zero value to the rest of the economy for which they could never ever actually expect to receive a pay check for. It's a self fulfilling cycle. Tidbits of data that "point at" but don't actually "prove" anything requiring "additional funding" to "more authoritatively" define the tidbit that then represents "movement" in the pursuit of the knowledge, which again is only another microscopic move towards an agenda driven political exercise. So, sure, I can lend weight to the idea that propagating information for the ability to parlay that into financial support is well and alive with the AGW circles.

Now, spreading false information seems to be the domain of news organizations and governmental groups who are determined to control a narrative to drive a specific political agenda. Why? It creates controversy for media, and it creates leverage to control for government.

 

More meaningless nonsense and dumbass drivel!

Your denier cult propaganda BS got completely debunked. By, along with many others, the very scientist, Dr. Bates, that the original propaganda article by David Rose was supposedly citing.

Your paranoid conspiracy theory defense of that denier cult crackpot article amounts to absurd and idiotic twaddle...and very laughable. Get a clue!

 

Shortly after Obama took office as US president he decreed that NASA's mission was to try to bring Muslims back to studying science like they did in the old days. I'm not kidding that was NASA's mission during the 8 years of Obama.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

I hope Trump does better with regard to exploring space and expanding our horizons.

 

Please read the reference links before believing what is printed on ClimateNexus:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

You can also refer to the links upthread from Bates and Curry on her blog Climate Etc.

 

That is total bullcrap! You must be very gullible as well as extremely ignorant if you can swallow that demented nonsense.

In the real world....

Rush Limbaugh says Barack Obama turned NASA into a 'Muslim outreach department'
PunditFact
By Katie Sanders
March 12th, 2014
....
We rate Limbaugh’s claim False.

Read article at site.

 

The link to Bate's comments came from ClimateNexus.

 

We don't need to rely on mr Rose, or Dr Bates. We have it on good authority having come from highly influential scientists themselves. Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth. All are on record, in email describing this process and this collusion, bullying of scientific publications etc.

- - - Updated - - -

 

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2426...se-nasa-for-islamo-outreach-reagan-bush-were/

[h=1]Reagan/Bush Used NASA for Muslim Outreach Before Obama[/h]

 

That didn't work for Reagan either did it? All the Arabs care about is driving the Jews into the sea. I'm still betting on the Jews they're not kidding around it's do or die for them.