SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-need-a-full-copy-of-production-for-testing dept.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
It was never subjected to NOAA's rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
More details can be found in his own words here:
They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
(Score: 4, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Monday February 06 2017, @06:31PM
The Mail reports that a report that the "pause" in Global Warming is false, is itself false. Well, the Daily Mail lies. So that's not (not (not (not Global Warming))) = Global Warming is true.
Also got to love the use of one hoked up, wrong counterexample as "proof" that the thousands of studies, research papers, analyses, and collections of data are all somehow flawed and wrong and have at the least exaggerated Global Warming, If anything, they've been too conservative in their projections.
I'd love to get in a betting pool with these guys on the first summer that the North Pole melts. They can all pick not in the next 100 years, and I can pick the opposite and I or my heirs can take all the money when the Arctic melts sometime in the next 20 to 50 years, if not sooner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:05PM
February 26, 2015
Jim Inhofe’s snowball has disproven climate change once and for all [washingtonpost.com]
Hey, he has THE EVIDENCE. How you gonna argue with THAT? /sarc
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:15PM
Is there an (((echo))) in here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:09AM
Only a {{{SCREAM}}}.