Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7
Anonymous
John Bates Climate Whistleblower 2017-02-09 12:22:09 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
John Bates Climate Whistleblower 2017-02-09 12:22:09 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 7.21.40 PM.png (2MB, 1612x1184px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1612x1184px
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Can we have a rational discussion about this article? The deniers are running wild with it saying it proves that global warming is false. But I don't think they understood what Bates was trying to say, they just manipulated his words to fit their narrative. I think he was upset (rightfully so IMO) that scientific protocol within NOAA wasn't followed, but I don't think he was debating anthropogenic climate change. I found one blog saying he didn't even think the data was manipulated, but was upset that the "pausebuster" paper didn't indicate its data was experimental, meaning it hadn't been run though various software and some other stuff.
I can't find any comment from NOAA or Bates or Karl about the incident, and just a few second hand articles trying to debunk the DailyMail story. I also consider the hundreds of other studies completed that were independent of the "pausebuster" paper, but reaches similar conclusions regarding anthropogenic climate change. I think the deniers forgot about all that too.
Finally, I read a study that came out in 2014 that had nothing to do with adjusting data to disprove the hiatus. It was a paper by climatologist Kevin Trenberth, and he attributed it to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. He did not try to adjust the data to make the pause go away, but explained that excess heat was being stored in the equatorial Pacific ocean, leading to the hiatus in the data. Wouldn't that reasoning compared against "adjusting the data because of the ships" be at odds against each other? Meaning, one researcher accepted the "pause" data and attributed it to a climate mode, while another researcher adjusted data to make the pause go away.
>>
>>8661123
>dailymail
>rational
>>
>>8661123
I will ensure that no rational discussion takes place in this thread. Believe me.
>>
File: mr australia 3.jpg (34KB, 658x464px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 658x464px
>>8661128
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>
>>8661128
High effort post faggot way to go.
>>
>>8661141
That was the original source dickhead, that's why I posted it.
>>
>>8661143
It's just a popsci blog post then.
>>
File: they're_laughing_at_you.jpg (722KB, 1200x902px) Image search:
[Google]
722KB, 1200x902px
>>8661123
>dailymail
lmao people take that seriously?
>>
>>8661123
fuck bates. why did he go to david rose of all people? as if he didn't know he would quote him out of context and spin it to push his narrative
>>
>>8661123
>I can't find any comment from NOAA or Bates or Karl
Discussion by Bates is here:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
>>
>>8661180
That's what I'm curious about too. With his credentials he could have gone to any major network, so I wonder why he chose something sketchy like DailyMail. It almost seems as if there was some personal rivalry between him and Karl.
>>
File: trashed.jpg (107KB, 680x890px) Image search:
[Google]
107KB, 680x890px
>>8661143
>That was the original source dickhead,
>>
>>8661164
Not that guy but the way modern media works is that they publish a bunch of shit-tier cheap articles with high profitability (viral clickbait shit) and do a bunch of re-reporting in order to fund the actual news they do. Here is a case where an original source provided information to the daily mail and they published an article on it. The other articles out there are re-reporting and/or clickbait even though some are coming out of better journals.
That said, I'm pretty sure I saw another article by another researcher involved who pointed out a number of mistakes in the story including claiming that the dude only ever used the data and could not have possibly tampered with it.
>>
File: 1486502320101.png (403KB, 521x520px) Image search:
[Google]
403KB, 521x520px
If climate change is real, how come we never see any photographic evidence from space (say, from the ISS) of the icecaps melting over the last few decades? All we have are """data visualizations"""
Seems kind of suspicious, doesn't it? Wouldn't a simple photograph comparison from 1990 to 2016 be proof enough for even the simplest rube?
>>
File: Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 10.26.15 PM.png (3MB, 1974x1290px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1974x1290px
>>8661334
Because we don't need to go to space. We can see the changes right here on Earth.
There's also an entire documentary on this exact subject. Though I'm sure you'll find something wrong with all of this empirical data, how it's ((them)) or ((jews)) or whatever stupid shit you retards come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JctaMpc0wqA&vl=en-US
>>
>>8661334
Pictures like that do exist but they don't hold up to scientific rigor because you need to have statistically significant evidence that a trend exists rather than there just being a few warm years. Think about it, even if a trend does exist it's likely we'll have a few cold years in the mix. Such years would provide ice cap pictures that would immediately challenge an argument based on ice cap pictures.
Moreover, they don't serve to convince the public because there's too much misinformation and disinformation in the public sphere, especially in regards to stuff like pictures of ice caps.
>>
>>8661410
I was honestly just baiting so someone would spoonfeed me pictures of the icecaps from space.
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7