twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That's a big Hockey Stick you have there...........
you make it all sound so simple.....
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I know, Mann made Hockey Stick; sad and true.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So we agree. You are confused about the difference between propaganda and fake news.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are still confused. Covered this before. Fake News in the context of the social media news issues this year is not the same as websites you go to find spam to copy and paste here.
"Fake News" is entirely made up for the purposes of attracting ad money. Some of those stories are the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater and people get harmed by it. It's not free speech, it's often libel. This nation and social media corporations like Facebook have every right to work on ways to snuff it out.
Fake News websites are propaganda organs that use Hoaxes, Fake News, cherry picked data, false news stories based upon real events, biased coverage, and so forth to serve their masters. In return their masters favor them with advertising and the money. It's now perfectly legal for Fox to deliberately lie in their coverage. It's been tested in court and Fox won that right. However, when a story is posted by Fox or another fake news website such as "Watts up" website, it comes with it's own warning label and so I laugh at you when you spam us with it.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php
Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate “scientists.” Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA’s top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
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.
NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.
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.
Of all the “fake news” stories that emerged in the last two years, this is undoubtedly the most important. More:
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
This is just one of the tricks the NOAA “scientists” employed to exaggerate warming:
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
The Earth’s surface temperature record has been so hopelessly corrupted by “adjustments” made for political purposes by NOAA and other agencies that it likely can never be accurately reconstructed. This is a great loss to science. The Mail story suggests that evidence may have been destroyed to cover the tracks of NOAA’s activists:
Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
Sounds like they borrowed the computer from the IRS.
NOAA is a rogue, politicized agency, like so many others. It has defied a Congressional committee’s subpoena, and apparently lied to the committee:
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Heads need to roll. Donald Trump has his work cut out for him, to put it mildly.
Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate “scientists.” Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA’s top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
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.
NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.
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.
Of all the “fake news” stories that emerged in the last two years, this is undoubtedly the most important. More:
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
This is just one of the tricks the NOAA “scientists” employed to exaggerate warming:
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
The Earth’s surface temperature record has been so hopelessly corrupted by “adjustments” made for political purposes by NOAA and other agencies that it likely can never be accurately reconstructed. This is a great loss to science. The Mail story suggests that evidence may have been destroyed to cover the tracks of NOAA’s activists:
Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
Sounds like they borrowed the computer from the IRS.
NOAA is a rogue, politicized agency, like so many others. It has defied a Congressional committee’s subpoena, and apparently lied to the committee:
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Heads need to roll. Donald Trump has his work cut out for him, to put it mildly.
HAF2
Well-Known Member
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/author/john
That is not a reputable news/ information source. It is a blog. There is a difference. Do you know the difference between verifiable data and just someone writing things?
What is the real reason you deny climate change brought about by mankind? Have you always denied this fact? Or are you only denying it now because Darth Orange and his cronies deny it?
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-101-1/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/climate-change/introduction-text
I find it interesting Fox won the right. Is it based upon free speech which even if 'fake' a person would still be considered 'free' to speak it, libel or not?
It seems to me when something is published auto response is 'it's legit'. If you say something not true, that's libel you are breaking the law. So is it only libel if you catch it? Everyone gets to think it's truth unless you're monitoring everything in print, on the web and TV?
I think you should be able to say anything you wish, however if it affects someone, something, some place in ANY way..positive or negative, should be mandatory factual.
What a tough argument.
HAF2
Well-Known Member
If you hear something from one source; always best to verify with alternative sources and research on your own. If you read or hear the same thing from 100 different sources; chances are they did their due diligence and that what they talked about is verifiable.
Fox reports things from their perspective. 20 news stations report about the peaceful protest of the woman's march; Fox News reports incidents of violence amongst protestors, repeatedly. 20 news stations report that president trump lied about his inauguration size; and actually fox reported that he did lie as well because even they couldn't spin doctor that balderdash.
Fox got out of the law suit against them because they are an "opinion show"; technically not even a news source and not held to the same scrutiny. They are protected from under the first amendment right for free speech; that's free speech not necessarily true speech.
In a day where people watch voiced-over YouTube "news" and spout it as facts, what can you do? You'll never convince the indocterined far-right of the truth. They only believe their truth. It's a sad day, but their minds seem unbendable.
The scariest part is this fake news shit is where the president is getting his information. Fucking sad.
Last edited:
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
If that doesn't suit you, here is the direct blog from the actual source in NOAA
So your main argument seems to be, that I am just quoting a random bloggers opinion, therefore it shouldn't have much weight (as if I would just believe a random blogger who could pull anything out of his ass). However, now that I showed you other sources, and a direct source to the NOAA scientist's own article, then I'm sure you see that all the information in the "not reputable" blog is actually sources perfectly. Therefore your argument is invalidated and shown to be carelessly written.
HAF2
Well-Known Member
I only saw the blog link. The alt-right blog link.
Where is this verifiable data you speak of? Link away and I'll read. All I saw was another blog link to judith something.
But I am not an environmental scientist and it is not my business to interpret data. I look to experts that have spent their lives learning this science. Why do you think you know better than nasa, national geographic, David Suzuki, or the environmental protection agency?
Thruth be told after I got to your blog I didn't continue reading. I don't read fake news.
They post this stuff and sit like Cheshire cats as if it were truth.
It scares me they don't know the difference.
The don't defend they run away and post another thread.
HAF2
Well-Known Member
The brain washed can't be saved. They must be left behind in the dust while we save ourselves, sad.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Why do you continue to post this stuff. You clearly don't understand the subject. Neither does the alt right.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't think Fox news won the right to libel, they just won the right to lie or rather to publish false or misleading stories even if they knew the stores are false. It was won in a Florida court, by the way. Thanks Florida.
Libel is hard to prove in court, however. The plaintiff has to prove there was an intent to defame, not just publish something that is not true.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
But the house science committee understands it though.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They're defaming our citizens and their right to know the truth.