Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 06 2017, @05:58PM   Printer-friendly
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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

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begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived.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/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:43PM (#463561)

    The guy trying to call attention to lead gas was derided by the powers that be; he was treated as a lunatic.

    The clean environment movement began among "private" citizens looking to care for their surroundings—government had a long history of subsidizing environment-destroying endeavors.

    Government is like that guy who jumps in front of a parade and then pretends to lead it. Government is Fake Leadership.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:52PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @07:52PM (#463597)

    With respect to lead in the environment, I find it suspicious that its always harmless when there is no alternative technology and then when one comes along all of a sudden, why who ever wouldda guessed its bad for you and lets use a new replacement.

    This happened with lead pipes, no problemo until copper production in S.A. makes copper cheap enough to use then ohshit.jpg gotta replace all the lead pipes in the water lines and demonize it although it was cool until copper was a realistic alternative.

    This happened with leaded gasoline, can't make exhaust valves last 5K miles due to shit metallurgy and no need to invest in shit metallurgy because we got leaded gas until suddenly get metallurgy good enough to use unleaded gas, next week, ohshit.jpg who ever wouldda guessed leaded gas isn't safe to drink huh whats the odds of that?

    Ditto leaded paint, no white paints existed at all until titanium dioxide miracle then like next week later ohshit.jpg no one ever could have guessed lead in paint might be bad for you lets ban the hell out of it.

    Government is like the guy who says F this parade crap them once the private citizens set it up by themselves he leaps in front as its passing by and claims he was leading it all along and he's always been a huge supporter. Agreed government is fake leadership.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:54PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @07:54PM (#463599)

      Damn if I didn't think of another example seconds after posting, lead in ammo especially waterfowl shotgun pellets for centuries, then bismuth is cheap enough to use it instead, suddenly, ohshit.jpg hey guize I just noticed lead is bad for you and we got the banhammer out...

      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday February 06 2017, @08:49PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Monday February 06 2017, @08:49PM (#463640) Homepage

        Personally for waterfowl I just use steel shot and go up 1-2 shot sizes over the recommended lead size. Same applies to upland bird hunting and I figure it is only a matter of time before it gets officially banned there so why not get out ahead of it. Steel shot is cheaper than bismuth or tungsten shot anyway and I don't need to be spraying lead all over the place so I can eat some tasty birds.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 06 2017, @08:11PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 06 2017, @08:11PM (#463612) Journal

      You find it suspicious that people wait until it's actually possible to replace something before advocating it's replacement?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:26PM (#463619)

        Unsurprisingly, you've missed the point: It is the innovation of a free society at large that pushes society in a better direction; then the government swoops in and pretends to be the savior that led society along the path it was already traveling.

        That's why nobody can ever argue that government is useless—people are taught that if it weren't for these angelic bureaucrats, we'd all be living in squalor.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:53PM (#463759)

          One wonders if there were physicists, chemists, materials engineers, mining engineers, process engineers, etc. who were educated at public universities involved in those innovations.

          One also wonders if there was a program at those public (or private) universities that was the result a grant from USA.gov to investigate that particular line of research.

          Further curiosity: After all that investment by the gov't, were private companies granted patents on all the innovations?

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:03AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:03AM (#463839)

            Typical statist logic: If government's shotgun spray of stolen cash touches anything useful, then that usefulness must have been impossible without government.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @09:15PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @09:15PM (#463665)

        Well, don't they almost always do the opposite?

        You don't hear much about stuff its possible to replace because people tend to replace them... because its possible.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:42PM (#463635)

      Ah. Runaway confessed that he is a victim of child abuse. I think we have a confession here that VLM is a victim of lead poisoning.

      At least the child abuse victim occasionally makes sense.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by https on Monday February 06 2017, @09:35PM

      by https (5248) on Monday February 06 2017, @09:35PM (#463691) Journal

      You are so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

      Your opening assertion, that things are never declared unsafe until a replacement is at hand, is so wrong - full of logical fail and not supported by history - I had to place doubt upon everything that followed. But your final lie-toid was the final straw.

      Titanium dioxide, which by the way is only used for white paints, was first noted as a neato pigment in the 1820s, but not commercialized until about 1915. Lead based home paint was banned in the US in 1978.

      Are any of your other assertions concerning lead true? Maybe, but right now I wouldn't bet any money on it. You're using lies to sell a version of reality that never existed.

      --
      Offended and laughing about it.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:19PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @10:19PM (#463733)

        but not commercialized until about 1915

        Yeah I donno about that. Ti is kinda like aluminum its everywhere but a huge pain in the ass to turn into metal (or pigment in the case of Ti) Prices and production before 1960 were nil and precious metal status, then starting around 60s 70s 80s the chloride process took off and prices dropped to like nothing and production like doubled every year for a long time.

        I bet an artist could buy a tube of Titanium dioxide paint in 1915 but it probably cost as much as solid gold would have cost. Ti wasn't really a "thing" until the 60s 70s 80s at least WRT mass production. I understand the Chinese have a new process that may eventually replace the old chloride process, but I'll wait and see.

        I'm not really sure what your point is. You can pull a graph of inflation adjusted titanium price off google easy enough and in the 60s it crashes from being literally a precious metal costing more than silver almost as much as gold, to being no biggie, and then a decade or two later we get around to finally banning lead paint ...

        I mean whats your alternative explanation, nobody noticed lead was bad until 1978?

        The world of chemistry is weird. Aluminum was still a precious metal when the Washington monument was built, and now a days people are like yeah whatever, the cap is solid aluminum whatever.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:36PM (#463782)

          I bet an artist could buy a tube of Titanium dioxide paint in 1915 but it probably cost as much as solid gold would have cost.

          Bet you not, eh? I just love the smell of fake history in the morning! What's that? You say it is not morning? Yes it is! It's Alt-morning! Now Good Alt-morning to you!

        • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:15AM

          by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:15AM (#463808)

          you would be wrong. Refined aluminum or titanium was rare and expensive because we had no cheap way to refine it. However, you are assuming you need refined pure titanium or aluminum in order to make the paints. That is not true. These are the naturally occurring compounds that we needed to learn to refine the pure metal FROM.
          This is like saying table salt was not available because no one could make sodium in order to make the sodium chloride.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:08PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:08PM (#464013)

            However, you are assuming you need refined pure titanium or aluminum in order to make the paints. That is not true.

            That's cool. I officially defer to your knowledge of pigments. Pigment chemistry is interesting and outside my area of expertise.

            I am a little confused about this whole flamewar in general, aside from this specific detail that frankly doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.

            AC claims two things: Environmentalists are laughed at and considered insane and the process of banning naughty chemicals begins with private citizens and then after the ban is a success (gaining supporters) the government steals leadership.

            I respond claiming other than outliers (the occasional "brave" scientist heavily supported by the establishment) there is no grass roots until they're financially fertilized by corporations trying to sell something new by banning the bad old stuff. At that point the money pours in and the government gets paid to ban the old stuff and the new company makes a pile of money. Its all about the money, never about avoiding environmental harm. Then I provide a pile of individual isolated examples, at least one of which was wrong, but who cares because the whole pile is individual isolated examples, and a massive shitstorm erupts yet what exactly is the problem with that theoretical model?

            I mean, is anyone seriously claiming alternative product manufacturers aren't doing everything they can to get the old bad stuff banned in order to max out their profits? Or is anyone seriously claiming grass roots protesters aren't heavily externally funded? Is someone seriously claiming the government isn't primarily run by money for money?

            Oh shit yo you got a minor detail of pigment chemistry wrong so obviously the entire theory, hell, the entire theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are also wrong...

            • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:00PM

              by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:00PM (#464323)

              Your issue about "environmentalists are laughed at" is where you are going wrong. pseudoscience lunatics are not environmentalists. they may be activists in favor of the environment- but they are not producing the data, studies, trends, or predictions. The environmental scientists are.

              Your claim about outliers is also wrong.
              The data is discovered that X is dangerous.
              X is made by or used heavily by companies as a profit source.
              said companies hire propaganda shills to muddy the water and make it look like there is controversy on the issue, in order to prolong their profit from X- with the ultimate goal of completely discrediting the facts if at all possible so they can use X forever.
              The data that proves X is bad is not in question, at all, by anyone not in the direct pay of these companies. (This should raise a HUGE red flag for any sane person)

              This has played out time and time again. Asbestos, lead, tobacco, and now climate change. There have been many ore such instances, but these are the big ones that got a lot of news play.

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:34PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:34PM (#464339)

                said companies hire propaganda shills to muddy the water and make it look like there is controversy on the issue, in order to prolong their profit from X- with the ultimate goal of completely discrediting the facts if at all possible so they can use X forever.

                That's theoretically possible, I agree. It is very conspiracy theory ish in that it requires a lot of cooperation between competitors. I mean it makes 9/11 inside job look relatively boring.

                Also beware of the dreaded retcon. Good of you to bring up tobacco. I'm older, and I assure you based on personal experience with older people when I was young, there is a strong retcon that "everyone believed smoking was healthy" but and legally in front of a jury maybe it was, but even the dumbest dumbass knew it was terrible. It fits a modern narrative that everyone thought cigarettes were vitamin sticks but having been there I assure you they're pulling your leg for a reason. I occasionally wonder if lead, asbestos, maybe as you claim climate change were the same way. Well this stuff sux but there's no profitable alternative and nobody is getting enough good boy points for putting their foot down so nobody is putting their foot down so it isn't happening. Then culture shifts, some replacement becomes profitable, maybe the market is muddied a bit, there's a sudden shift in attitudes, then the retcon begins almost immediately about the past until people who lived thru it, can't recognize it anymore, but its sure a hell of a good story.

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:01AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:01AM (#466028)

                  I don't understand where exactly is massive cooperation required? That might happen but individuals certainly work as well.

                  Wasn't the situation more like everybody thought that smoking was bad for you but the companies adamantly claimed it wasn't.

                • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday February 13 2017, @11:29PM

                  by Nobuddy (1626) on Monday February 13 2017, @11:29PM (#466778)

                  theoretically possible? It is documented fact.

                  example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563588/ [nih.gov]

                • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday February 13 2017, @11:34PM

                  by Nobuddy (1626) on Monday February 13 2017, @11:34PM (#466779)

                  A long read, but this study goes in to great detail about the tobacco industries efforts to deny as well as astroturf, and documents obtained found that early climate denial efforts worked with them in the effort. That was an unexpected bonus of the court order to release Phillip-Morris lawsuit discovery documents to researchers.

                  http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.full [bmj.com]

    • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:16PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Monday February 06 2017, @10:16PM (#463730) Journal

      With respect to lead in the environment, I find it suspicious that its always harmless when there is no alternative technology and then when one comes along all of a sudden, why who ever wouldda guessed its bad for you and lets use a new replacement.

      Your assertion is that lead is harmless?

      No, what happens is that people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment, then people develop alternative technologies, then the cost of those alternatives drops to the point that they are economically viable and finally, as a society, we eliminate the harmful chemical.

      What's so hard to understand? Or do you have a problem with people improving society for profit?

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM (#463739)

        I think you and possibly others are confusing me with the original AC claiming

        The guy trying to call attention to lead gas was derided by the powers that be; he was treated as a lunatic.

        You can debate

        people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment

        with AC all you want, seeing as you two are in direct opposition.

        I personally find it suspicious that grassroots movements come after industrial chemistry advancements. Like a lot of conspiracy theories about Freon, which frankly probably are true, that the patents were running out so time to make it illegal one way or the other. Regardless of the scientific facts I suspect certain political movements become very well funded resulting in success when its industrially profitable for those "grass roots" to be fertilized. This doesn't sound unusually unrealistic based on non-scientific political behavior, when there's something political having nothing to do with chemistry.

    • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM (#463740) Journal

      This happened with leaded gasoline, can't make exhaust valves last 5K miles due to shit metallurgy and no need to invest in shit metallurgy because we got leaded gas until suddenly get metallurgy good enough to use unleaded gas,

      You can't even get your history right, can you?

      The initial reason to remove lead in gasoline came about from the introduction of catalytic converters.

      Mandated removal of leaded gasoline from the market came some time after all the necessary technology (such as hardened valve seats) that is needed for unleaded gasoline was developed: because all that technology was required by catalytic converters.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:26AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:26AM (#463921) Journal

      Ditto leaded paint, no white paints existed at all until titanium dioxide miracle then like next week later ohshit.jpg no one ever could have guessed lead in paint might be bad for you lets ban the hell out of it.

      Really? Böcklin, Van Gogh, Manet, Munch and others [wikipedia.org] must have been delusional to think they used some non-lead white pigment, eh?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:37PM (#463630)

    When the economy tanked in 1929 (due to a lack of regulation/oversight of investment banking), USA was stuck with Republican Herbert Hoover until the presidential election of 1932.

    Hoover was dumped by the electorate at the first opportunity.
    Because the Capitalists weren't hiring and unemployment had reached 25 percent, Franklin Roosevelt, listening to his advisor John Maynard Keynes, made the gov't The Employer of Last Resort.
    FDR put 15 million idled Americans to work building infrastructure and started taxing the Billionaire Class again, this time at a marginal rate of 94 percent.
    (The rate stayed above 90 percent through Truman's and Ike's presidencies, a period often called "The Good Old Days".)

    Getting money into the pockets of The Workers so that they could spend that into the economy, kick-started the Multiplier Effect and saved USA's economy from its downward spiral.

    That's the closest USA.gov has ever come to "leadership" that I can think of.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:04PM (#463652)

      You are spouting off the government's propagandist party line taught to gullible school children in the... wait for it... government-dominated schooling system.

      The Government (including the Federal Reserve) caused the Great Depression; the Federal Reserve admits this openly these days—don't forget that in 1929, the Federal Reserve had been around for a very long time already. Furthermore, the policies of FDR prolonged and worsened the structural problems in the economy; read about the Forgotten Depression of 1920–21.

      It was only after WWII that the economy boomed, and that followed both a massive reduction in federal spending and a massive reduction in regulation (and the boom undoubtedly also reflected the fact that the rest of the world was totally fucked).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:30PM (#463743)

        The Federal Reserve is "Federal" only in its name.
        It is a cartel of PRIVATE bankers.
        If you want to take the topic from there ("Fascism"), that might be worthwhile.
        You could go into how a previous Populist president[1] destroyed The Bank of the United States.

        [1] Andrew Jackson is routinely found on a list of USA's worst presidents.

        I disagree with the goal of patrician FDR to "save Capitalism".

        ...but all that Hoover did for 4 calendar years was sit on his thumb and hope that The Market would fix everything.
        Did I already mention "downward spiral"? {Checks} Yeah, I did.
        Did I already mention "the Capitalists weren't hiring"? {Checks} Yeah, I did.

        I don't think that FDR went far enough, not using eminent domain to nationalize failed/failing corporations and not reselling those to worker-owner cooperatives at a zero-interest rate.

        That said, this quote from FDR shows the difference between him and (failed president) Hoover:
        "DO SOMETHING. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else."
        The results that FDR got were "good enough", so he stopped there.   8-(

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:06AM (#463840)

          ... it ain't private. You really cannot get more governmental than that.

          FDR prolonged and worsened the depression; what don't you get about that?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:04AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:04AM (#463884)

            The Fed is ordained by the goddamn Constitution

            Actually, no.

            The Constitution grants the federal gov't the exclusive right to mint money.
            That's all that that document has to say about money or banking.

            FDR prolonged and worsened the depression

            Right. Had USAians just left Hoover in there, doing what he had been doing (or, more specifically, not doing), with the corps continuing to do what they were doing (or, again, not doing), that downward spiral that was already at 25 percent unemployment, with few folks having the money to buy anything, things would have magically straightened out all by themselves. /sarc

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]