Author Topic: Data Manipulation - NOAA  (Read 1019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2017, 09:06:17 PM »
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]


 ](*,)
Banners, tags, widgets, etc. are why I have Signatures turned off.

Offline Bashy

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
    • Suffolk Weather
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2017, 12:54:16 AM »
MattK, do you not check your facts before you think you are posting facts?

I just done a quick google of Mr Bates and came across this..

Quote
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.
Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”
    :roll:
Kind regards
Bashy

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2017, 01:13:37 AM »
MattK, do you not check your facts before you think you are posting facts?

I just done a quick google of Mr Bates and came across this..

Quote
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.
Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”
    :roll:

Fancy that, Yes everybody in these instances go into self protection mode especially the agencies accused of the rorting, doesn't change the intent does it.

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people.  Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.”

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.):I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda.  I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee's efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.”

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2017, 01:14:07 AM »
Next

Offline Bashy

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
    • Suffolk Weather
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2017, 01:30:10 AM »
Their quotes are based on lies or exaggerations of the truth, not saying their quotes are not real
If someone exaggerated what Bates really said or meant then...... It only takes one journalist to
misquote and the rest follow suit.

Look, GW is real, no matter how you want to look at it, if you want to think its not or that we are
not to blame then thats up to you of course, but trying to prove something you cannnot and i have
not seen you do it yet, i think this is the 3rd thread that i have seen with you arguing your case
and not winning in either thread, its time to quit.
 
Even if they are cooking the books, they are doing it in the wrong direction anyway ;)

You cannot seriously thing GW is not happening? Take a look at the UK for one, we used have have
consistently cold and snowy winters and long hot summers, now, its mostly mild and wet winters
and mild and wet summers, if that aint GW i do not know what is.
Kind regards
Bashy

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2017, 03:16:53 AM »
Their quotes are based on lies or exaggerations of the truth, not saying their quotes are not real
If someone exaggerated what Bates really said or meant then...... It only takes one journalist to
misquote and the rest follow suit......

Honestly some really don't understand the difference between a journalist misquote and a US Congress committee hearing. Gee Wiz talk about not understanding the difference. Congressman Lamar S. Smith's name is on top of the following brief and if you don't know who Congressman Lamar S. Smith is then I suggest you to some research. Journalist misquote ..... are you for real  :shock:

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA%20Karl%20Study%20One-Pager.pdf

Oh and BTW the subject is Data Manipulation, yet everybody is trying to justify GW, just stick to the subject people, don't panic we will worry about GW another day.

 
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 03:19:28 AM by Mattk »

Offline Bashy

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
    • Suffolk Weather
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2017, 03:22:03 AM »
Matt, I am going take your reality and replace with my own, have a good day sir...
Kind regards
Bashy

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2017, 03:46:38 AM »
Matt, I am going take your reality and replace with my own, have a good day sir...

You an avid believer, are you?

Offline Bashy

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
    • Suffolk Weather
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2017, 03:56:44 AM »
I believe in global warming, yes, for sure, anyone who thinks otherwise thats your business,
sad thing is, its not a good image for you bleating on about it in various threads.
Why the need, youve said what you think, others have said what they think, just let it go,
let it go, ooo Frozen how apt  \:D/

I can live with you believing what you want to, why is it so hard for you to do the same and just move on?
Kind regards
Bashy

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2017, 04:58:46 AM »
I believe in global warming, yes, for sure, anyone who thinks otherwise thats your business,
sad thing is, its not a good image for you bleating on about it in various threads.
Why the need, youve said what you think, others have said what they think, just let it go,
let it go, ooo Frozen how apt  \:D/

I can live with you believing what you want to, why is it so hard for you to do the same and just move on?

So how about Data Manipulation (which is what the subject is all about) to produce a desired outcome, do you also believe in that or do you turn a blind eye and ignore it? This is what the question is all about, how much longer can this rort be ignored, forget GW this is not the issue, but why do some think they have to manipulate the data in an attempt to prove some point, is the science that weak that people have to basically tell lies? 

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2017, 05:08:08 AM »
Honestly some really don't understand the difference between a journalist misquote and a US Congress committee hearing.

I'll take a simple mistake over deliberate political posturing for $200, Alex.

Banners, tags, widgets, etc. are why I have Signatures turned off.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8561
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2017, 05:28:49 AM »
Matt ok, I get it.

Data adjustment - correcting/adjusting data based on scientific basis and reasons that make it likely the resulting adjusted number will be of higher accuracy.

Data manipulation - deliberately changing data with the intend to have them the way you want them (for whatever reason)

First one totally fine (in fact desirable), second one - unacceptable

And I dont think anyone here ever disagreed with that - which makes me wonder why you felt the need to start this (yet another) thread

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #37 on: September 07, 2017, 06:00:18 AM »
Ok then so is capping the minimum temperate at which no temperate can be recorded below manipulation or adjustment, lets take for example a sensor capable of +/- 60 degC but it not allowed to record a value less than say -10 deg C, Manipulation or Adjustment?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8561
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2017, 06:04:52 AM »
Manipulation

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2017, 06:14:08 AM »

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8561
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #40 on: September 07, 2017, 06:18:24 AM »
Yes and the point?

No-one ever argued with you that if (and Im emphasizing IF), someone manipulated data, it is ok.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #41 on: September 07, 2017, 06:27:25 AM »
Yes and the point?

No-one ever argued with you that if (and Im emphasizing IF), someone manipulated data, it is ok.

Even you would have to admit some people simply can not accept that data is being and has been manipulated for unethical purposes and it clearly has, there can be no denying this but some continue to try and try real hard. One only has to read some of the comments and replies in this thread to see the reaction of some people when their holy grail of thinking is threatened. Some people simply have some real trouble understanding what is really going on.