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begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived.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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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]