More manipulated data and "settled science" disappears, making any serious validation impossible. Faking data and covering up their deceit is the only area of competency for NOAA and their collaborators at NASA.

Again, isn't is curious that this outrageous climate shakedown is only an area of interest for the foreign press?


http://www.dailymail.co.u...-data.html

https://www.carbonbrief.o...ature-rise

https://fromtheprow.agu.o...anagement/

Looks like the 'suspect data' has all been independently verified.

[Edited by Bridgier (2/6/2017 9:59:52 AM)]

Citing the Daily Mail. Yeesh. What's next, a thesis with the National Enquirer as a reference?

Are we sure that Oddjob and Cactus Plains aren't one and the same?

Keep in mind Oddjob calls Snopes the "Infowars" of the left.

I thought this was going to be about NOAA's weather guessers being consistently wrong in their forecasts, having recently waded through 6" of "20%", and remembered that it's the National Office of Average Averages and that it all kind of works out in the end. I think anyhow.

Gunnar Emilsson wrote:

Citing the Daily Mail. Yeesh. What's next, a thesis with the National Enquirer as a reference?

Are we sure that Oddjob and Cactus Plains aren't one and the same?

The that's not fair to Cactus Plains. Cactus is observant enough to understand the processes of desertification are changing the species composition of his cow pastures.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I needed a good laugh. Thanks, Oddy. Your crazy makes my day.

Here are some photos and satellite photos of melting glaciers. I wonder what they will re-name Glacier National Park when all the glaciers have melted. Oh yes, I forgot -- the Republicans want to sell the public lands. Maybe we won't have to worry about re-naming it after all.

https://weather.com/scien...en-and-now

Gunnar Emilsson wrote:

Citing the Daily Mail. Yeesh. What's next, a thesis with the National Enquirer as a reference?

Are we sure that Oddjob and Cactus Plains aren't one and the same?

Oh, my. Isn't hypocrisy hard at work here.

If I had a nickle for every time I have seen The Guardian or the Daily Mail referenced here at milescity, I could probably buy a couple of beers. Hell, some of you do it three times a day. If I had a nickle for every time I have seen somebody here bad mouth those reference besides me, I'd be out of pocket on any cold ones.

I don't suppose anybody noticed the "whistleblower" was the guy who wrote the NOAA protocols for developing and archiving the data in question. If anybody knows how data was faked or mishandled, it would be that guy. It would also be an interesting story to hear how the groups referenced by Bridgier were able to procure and analyze data that NOAA failed to deliver to Congress after being handed a subpoena for it.

Tell me that Bridgier. Why does some nobody at Berkeley Earth have access to NOAA data that Congress can't get from a government agency?

I can't say I have ever referenced either of them, Oddjob. You remain a whack a doodle nut job in all of our eyes.

I don't come here looking for love, Gunnar. I come here for the entertainment.

You do a wonderful job of providing entertainment, OJ.

Despite hatchet job articles from fake news outlets like The Daily Mail, Infowars, Breitbart, and Fox News claiming otherwise, the truth is, data and research from federal agencies is some of the most objective and thoroughly reviewed in the scientific community.

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies involved in scientific research to release all information regarding its research, including methods of data collection. And it be independently verified.

http://corporate.findlaw....y-act.html
http://www.cio.noaa.gov/s...ality.html

The daily mail article does not say that global warming isn’t occurring, just that it’s not happening as fast as some research suggests. What the article does describe is “data smoothing”, a common statistical technique used in research. They made a mountain out of a molehill, ran with a story based on information from a butt hurt scientist whose data wasn’t used, to try and expose some huge climate scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing

On a side note, everyone who is worried about “fake science” needs to read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Do...019530067X

[Edited by tom regan (2/9/2017 10:01:12 AM)]

Here it is from Bates, himself.

https://judithcurry.com/2...more-22794

Did you look at the comments on that, Oddjob? This guy in particular has a lot to say:

http://icarus-maynooth.bl...l?spref=tw

I did.

He says:

"At no point was any pressure bought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices. It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout."

Bates says otherwise. Since Bates allegedly wrote the protocols for documentation and archiving and this guy didn't, I tend to believe Bates.

Believe what you want but if you buy into this voodoo..Well, I just happen to have a bridge for sale...

So the upshot of all this "corruption" is Oddjob is only 90% confident desertification is occurring, while the rest of the world is 95% confident.

"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." -- John Bates, former NOAA employee

"I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people." -- John Bates, former NOAA employee

“Misuse” is the understatement of the year

Misuse it people did – and how! Bates’ complaints boiled down to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures.” The Mail on Sunday (just banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source) warped that minor procedural criticism into the sensationalist headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”

The story then spread through the international conservative media like a global warming-intensified wildfire - to Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more. Scott Johnson summed up the fake news story perfectly in an article at Ars Technica:

"At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing."

Source: Skeptical Science: Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science