Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't find those "revelations" at all surprising, if true.
In fact, such shenanigans are to be expected in today's world.
Again, "if true".
If not true, again, such shenanigans are to be expected.
David Rose has a long history of writing discredited articles for the Daily Mail attacking climate scientists
Rose gets some suggestive quotes from an apparently disgruntled retired NOAA employee. The quotes themselves seem to be likely inconsequential procedural complaints, the corresponding insinuations seem to come from Rose.
I thought journalism had a rule that claims by a source need to be confirmed by at least a second source. I am missing any confirmation.
He fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.
His claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as a paper independently verifying the most important parts of NOAA’s results.
(There are global surface temperature datasets, such as Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT that are relatively independent of the NOAA data sets, that agree qualitatively with the new NOAA data set. )
Many of the comparisons ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly.
David Rose has a long history of writing discredited articles for the Daily Mail attacking climate scientists
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.
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.
The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work… John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data either in person or remotely.
The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work… John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data either in person or remotely.
Quote:
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
So are you going to tell us how he's become corrupted by the oil industry or how he is wrong?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
