edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
It is fake news from a disgruntled ex-employee. Just like the fake "climategate" hoax.Definitely not fake anything..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is fake news from a disgruntled ex-employee. Just like the fake "climategate" hoax.Definitely not fake anything..
It is fake news from a disgruntled ex-employee. Just like the fake "climategate" hoax.Definitely not fake anything..
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card"..
You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card"..
You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
I bet you can't even see your own stupidity in discrediting your own "whistleblower"!!!!
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card"..
You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
I bet you can't even see your own stupidity in discrediting your own "whistleblower"!!!!
Just watch. The PUBLIC retractions of fraud and misrepresentation in NOAA/GISS are just less than a year away.. Guarandamnteeit..
Elektra, thanks for bringing this up. I'd forgotten how badly the deniers pooched it here, and it gives me a chance to rub their face in it.
Just watch. The PUBLIC retractions of fraud and misrepresentation in NOAA/GISS are just less than a year away.. Guarandamnteeit..
It's well over a year gone now, and what Flac guaranteed hasn't happened. Flac's conspiracy theory was clearly delusional. And nobody is surprised. Being that "I was wrong" is not in his vocabulary, it means he'll have created a new conspiracy theory to explain why his old conspiracy theory failed.
Meanwhile, here's what Dr. Bates said.
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---
Oh goody, "20 crucial data storage and handling steps." I'm sure there were also multiple flow charts. That is, Bates is a mid-level bureaucrat who was upset that his own special bureaucratic procedures weren't being followed to the letter. It's how mid-level bureaucrats justify their existence, by creating their own unique system that everyone else has to follow.
The important thing is Bates confirmed no fraud. All the deniers here said Bates was an impeccable source, hence all the deniers have admitted no fraud in the data. So, deniers got some 'splainin to do, as to why they made up all those stories of fraud and repeated them for so many years.
That's the reason that YOU and CrickHam, and GoldiRocks are not posting TERRIFYING tales of gloom here daily anymore.. Isn't it? Your Grim Fairy Tales Weekly Reader has gone Bye-Bye..
Oh sure. Ignore the new MIT study that says that all the "accelerated, runaway, warming scenarios" are bogus.
Or the constantly plummeting "climate sensitivity" variable
that puts the warming power of CO2 at about the level I've always contested that it was. Right about at the basic envelope calculation that derives from a doubling with NO feedbacks, NO accelerations, NO scary your pants off embellishments.
As for THIS prediction, the federal level of govt moves slower than expected. Not a surprise to a Libertarian.
BUT, it was announced last year, that ALL NOAA/GISS algorithms would become public and FULLY DOCUMENTED. And that they would maintained that way.; INCLUDING --- the results of updates and tweaks. NEED A LINK Squidward????
That means that the entire HISTORY of revisions will become "shared science" --- AND THAT -- is a war winning victory.
You can tell.. When was the LAST TIME you saw monthly HEADLINE NEWS from NOAA/GISS about the WARMEST _____________ ever?
It's gone. Maybe a couple times in 2018... THe mojo is out of the sauce and kitchen isn't COOKING data like it used to...
You're so phony Squidward
You're so phony Squidward
Notice how I can run circles around you without insults? That's not because I'm especially brilliant. It's because I'm part of the reality-based community. I see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You, you're on your belly in the swamp.
In this case, the topic was a bizarre claim you made about the consensus of climate sensitivity.
I showed the consensus from the organization that summarizes the consensus, the IPCC, plus the modern science from the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals specializing in climate science.
You got your views on it from climastrologist and mathturbator Scafetta, who thinks the orbit of Jupiter controls earth's climate, and who specializes in cherrypicking to get the curves he likes, such as the one you showed. That particular paper was published in the "International Journal of Heat and Technology", an engineering journal. Scafetta really had to shop around to find a journal, any journal, where he could slip his climastrology past the editors.
And you fell for it. You always do.
Nah......what hoax?
Check the link.........imaginary data.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
You alarmist bozo's are such a bunch of suckers!!!
You're so phony Squidward
Notice how I can run circles around you without insults? That's not because I'm especially brilliant. It's because I'm part of the reality-based community. I see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You, you're on your belly in the swamp.
In this case, the topic was a bizarre claim you made about the consensus of climate sensitivity.
I showed the consensus from the organization that summarizes the consensus, the IPCC, plus the modern science from the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals specializing in climate science.
You got your views on it from climastrologist and mathturbator Scafetta, who thinks the orbit of Jupiter controls earth's climate, and who specializes in cherrypicking to get the curves he likes, such as the one you showed. That particular paper was published in the "International Journal of Heat and Technology", an engineering journal. Scafetta really had to shop around to find a journal, any journal, where he could slip his climastrology past the editors.
And you fell for it. You always do.
What consensus are you referring to?
75 Papers: Low Sensitivity
How many of these published papers are from Scaffetta?
Snicker...……………….
What consensus are you referring to?