• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A "Watts Up" Bombshell Blows Sky High

Surface Detail said:
Bates himself, the author of those comments, was at pains to point out that he was not accusing NOAA of manipulating data. As he said: "I knew people would misuse this." He was quite right. You are indeed misusing this but, importantly, so did Mail on Sunday journalist David Rose whose misreporting (as determined by IPSO) was, astonishingly, simply accepted at face value by the Senate Committee. It that how it works in the US these days? You allow policy to be influenced by nonsense spouted by some lying foreign journalist? Incredible.
Click to expand...

So are you going to answer what I asked you?
So what did "a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," and "conversation about data integrity" and "So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation." mean to you when you read it ?​
 
bubbabgone said:
So are you going to answer what I asked you?
So what did "a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," and "conversation about data integrity" and "So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation." mean to you when you read it ?​
Click to expand...

These are, as the IPSO pointed out, merely criticisms of the data collection process used by Karl, not, as the Mail on Sunday claimed, 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper had been based on 'misleading, unverified data'. You can read David Rose's original article here, now prefaced by IPSO's adjudication pointing out that it is actually a false representation of Bates's claims, i.e. fake news.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
 
Surface Detail said:
These are, as the IPSO pointed out, merely criticisms of the data collection process used by Karl, not, as the Mail on Sunday claimed, 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper had been based on 'misleading, unverified data'. You can read David Rose's original article here, now prefaced by IPSO's adjudication pointing out that it is actually a false representation of Bates's claims, i.e. fake news.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
Click to expand...

Whilst they may not be irrefutable proof they are indeed irrefutable evidence of doing wrong things to try to maximise the warming.

I recon that would be good enough for any court to convict of fraud given the chance.

Unless there is some sort of super argument the other way.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, Bates did not criticize the data itself. As he subsequently said, "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 was criticising a supposed breach of protocol, not the data.

The Mail on Sunday was, basically, lying when it claimed that Bates was criticizing the data. It really was fake news. And the deniers lapped it all up without question, as did the House Science, Space and Technology Committee chaired by Lamar Smith. What utter fools. They should be hanging their heads in shame that they were taken in by this nonsense.
Click to expand...
'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that's what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.'
Those ARE the mans actual words.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Whilst they may not be irrefutable proof they are indeed irrefutable evidence of doing wrong things to try to maximise the warming.

I recon that would be good enough for any court to convict of fraud given the chance.

Unless there is some sort of super argument the other way.
Click to expand...

You're way behind the curve here, Tim. The IPSO has already ruled that Bates's criticisms of Karl's paper do not constitute irrefutable evidence that the paper had been based on misleading, unverified data, as claimed by the Mail on Sunday. That's the whole point of this thread. It's why the article making this claim in the Mail on Sunday website must now be prefaced by a warning that it is, essentially, fake news.
 
Surface Detail said:
You're way behind the curve here, Tim. The IPSO has already ruled that Bates's criticisms of Karl's paper do not constitute irrefutable evidence that the paper had been based on misleading, unverified data, as claimed by the Mail on Sunday. That's the whole point of this thread. It's why the article making this claim in the Mail on Sunday website must now be prefaced by a warning that it is, essentially, fake news.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that Watts was proven to promote FAKE NEWS. The guy has only a High School education. He runs with anything his Denier pundits report. Nothing can be trusted from this source.
 
Surface Detail said:
You're way behind the curve here, Tim. The IPSO has already ruled that Bates's criticisms of Karl's paper do not constitute irrefutable evidence that the paper had been based on misleading, unverified data, as claimed by the Mail on Sunday. That's the whole point of this thread. It's why the article making this claim in the Mail on Sunday website must now be prefaced by a warning that it is, essentially, fake news.
Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:
It's not surprising that Watts was proven to promote FAKE NEWS. The guy has only a High School education. He runs with anything his Denier pundits report. Nothing can be trusted from this source.
Click to expand...

The original Bates post at Judith Curry's site.

Climate scientists versus climate data

Posted on February 4, 2017 | 761 comments
by John Bates A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

761 Comments
Posted in Data and observations, Ethics

". . . The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided. . . . "



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom