[Newsbot]

Title: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Category: Science
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2017-02-06 13:29:47

[uwish]

"Dr John Bates disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called "Pausebuster" paper is the biggest scientific scandal since "Climategate" in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a "trick" to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Britain's Mail on Sunday today revealed 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."

I believe I have been saying they are manipulating the data since one of my first post's about this 'global warming' fiasco.

[BartSimpson]

AGW is a religious belief and the reason these jacktards won't release their methodologies or their raw data is because then we'd see what frauds they are.

Speaking of fraud, they should all be prosecuted and jailed for costing us untold billions in a futile effort to deal with a problem they fabricated.

[DrCaleb]

This story was already disproven as a hoax.

Like dad said; Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02 ... ated-data/

[uwish]

BS, I see even when faced with overwhelming evidence you still can't admit the data if wrong.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/clim ... more-22794

from Climate ETC where he writes HIS OWN ARTICLE on this issue. Nothing fake about it.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

The story’s author, David Rose, has published a great many sensational articles over the years, falsely claiming to present evidence undermining the threat of climate change or the human cause behind it. But this latest article is noteworthy in that it appears to reveal the supposed “whistleblower” who has been cited by the US House Science Committee in its ongoing clash with climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

$1:

For a final example of its author's incompetence, the Mail on Sunday article claims that NOAA has seen the error of its ways and that it's suddenly working on a new version (version 5) of the sea surface temperature database that reverts the previous changes and reduces the cooling trend again. In reality, the new version is just the normal process beginning the next update, which will incorporate data from the growing fleet of autonomous floats, among other things. It's happening because version 4 is now over three years old. Hausfather notes that while the preliminary version 5 does indeed reduce the recent warming trend by about 10 percent, it still shows 50 percent more warming than the version Bates and Lamar Smith seem to like.

The article on the Daily Mail website is headlined “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data," but the list of those “duped” seems to be limited to the author of the story and any readers who make the mistake of trusting it. Sadly, those believers include the head of the House Science Committee.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02 ... ated-data/

uwish uwish:

BS, I see even when faced with overwhelming evidence you still can't admit the data if wrong.

"Overwhelming evidence".

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Overwhelming evidence".

The overwhelming evidence is the fact that the alleged evidence supporting the AGW alarmists was destroyed...which assumes it ever existed in the first place.

$1:

None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Publishing unverifiable results is not science. There is then no evidence to support the conclusions in the NOAA paper and that fact constitutes overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Overwhelming evidence".

The overwhelming evidence is the fact that the alleged evidence supporting the AGW alarmists was destroyed...which assumes it ever existed in the first place.

$1:

None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Publishing unverifiable results is not science. There is then no evidence to support the conclusions in the NOAA paper and that fact constitutes overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

Again, I say; "Overwhelming evidence".

The guy who wrote the paper was an engineer on the project. And one rant by an uninformed engineer is not 'overwhelming' by any mis-characterization of the facts.

$1:

The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

$1:

4. 'The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified'

The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto. This provenance satisfied both Science and the reviewers of Karl et al. It applied a known method (used operationally) to a known set of improved data holdings (published and approved).

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.ca/2017 ... et-al.html

Like I said to start with, a disproven hoax.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

The story’s author, David Rose...

Hang on a sec...

Aren't you the guy who claims outrage at Ad Hominem attacks?

But basically all you've got there is somebody writing a hit piece on somebody else calling him a hack. He also tells us Doctor Christie, formally of NOAA is an "alleged" whistleblowing, mean-nothing, no-nothing.

Well...as long as we're doing the Mean Girl thing, I always remember Ars Technica as a tech site. Why are they getting so interested in pushing global warmist PR? Because this isn't the first time you've posted them doing it.

Now let me tell you about Tom Karl, the guy behind the original Pausebuster paper. He's not really a scientist. He's more this administrator type that started turning up to manage organizations for warmist favoring administrations.

They like to claim Karl is a professor. He's not. He has an honorary doctorate. So does Dolly Parton.

And seeing as your writer - Scott K Johnson - likes to rely on the ad homs so much, here's a guy who doesn't like Scott K Johnson too much.

https://guymcpherson.com/2014/12/how-sc ... -it-wrong/

See how easy that is?

[N_Fiddledog]

Now, concerning the actual science, remember how I was saying there was always a "circling the wagon" stage when the challenges to the warmist orthodoxy first hit?

Basically you hear a lot ad homs, see some quick pseudo-sciencey hocus pocus and they use the word "debunk" a lot.

Then the other side starts to hit back with science, facts and stats. That stage has now begun.

Here's a couple from Watts showing the effects of NOAA's "buggy software" DR. Christie was complaining about.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/ ... e-network/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/ ... -agw-game/

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

They like to claim Karl is a professor. He's not. He has an honorary doctorate. So does Dolly Parton.

So do I. It looks nice on the wall at home next to my Resolution from Congress on my retirement from the Corps. It never occurred to me to use it to legitimize my comments on climate (or anything else, for that matter).

[uwish]

It's tough for the new climate religious types to actually believe anything other than the media. They won't look at the data themselves. But I don't expect them to really, they can keep believe the world if flat if they want to.

[BartSimpson]

uwish uwish:

It's tough for the new climate religious types to actually believe anything other than the media. They won't look at the data themselves. But I don't expect them to really, they can keep believe the world if flat if they want to.

In some very real ways the AGW cultists' refusal to demand access to raw, unadjusted data is similar to the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the advent of the Gutenberg Bible and public access to the Holy Scriptures. Read on and see the similarities in behavior for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-s ... 03545.html

$1:

The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.


Wouldn’t you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels? And wouldn’t the best way of spreading the “good news” be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible?


That’s not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own — a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.


Yet, a different model already existed in Judaism. Dating back to the Exodus, Moses ordained public readings of the Torah, according to Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus: “...every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Torah and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge.” That practice later became standard in synagogue services, in which the Old Testament (Torah) is read over a year in sequence, covering the entire Bible. In fact, as a practicing Jew, Jesus read the weekly parsha (section of the Torah) at the Sabbath services that he regularly attended: “And he went to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).


Since the Church sequestering their sanctioned Bible from the populace makes no sense, I was not surprised that some readers bristled when I recently wrote about the historic prohibitions against Christians reading the New Testament on their own, or worse, translating the Bible into a native language. One called me a liar. That too was not surprising. A few years earlier I gave a talk at an American Psychological Association meeting and afterwards lunched with a group of young Christians, some of whom also challenged my statements about the Bible prohibitions. I later sent them references documenting my claims, but never heard back from them. I’ve always wondered how they reacted to the citations I sent, which included:


Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”


Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”


Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”


Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.



While I was writing my book “Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew,” it became increasingly clear to me that there was another more potent motive for keeping the New Testament out of reach for Christians: to conceal the Jewish foundation of Christianity and Jesus’ lifelong dedication to Judaism and Jewish practices.

Would the newly established Church want converts to know that Christianity began as a Jewish sect and that Jesus was a thoroughly dedicated practicing Jew who never suggested the launch of a new religion? Would the Church want it revealed that Jesus lived and died a dedicated Jew, as observed by Christian writer Jean Guitton in his book “Great Heresies and Church Councils”?




Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel...

Wouldn’t Church officials also want to conceal that the disciples, led by James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, continued to maintain their Jewish identities but made Rabbi Jesus the centerpiece of their Jewish practices (Acts of the Apostles). Later, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, initiated a rift between his brand of Jewish Christianity and the teachings of the Jerusalem-based disciples of Jesus. That divide eventually drifted toward increasing separation of Christianity and Judaism. But Jewish converts to the new Jewish Christianity continued to worship in synagogues, a practice that was still proliferating as late as the fourth century. The vicious “Homilies Against the Jews” by Saint John of Chrysostom (386-387 C.E.) make that clear. Why would the Bishop of Antioch, and later Archbishop of Constantinople, spend so much time and energy excoriating Christians for continuing to attend synagogues and participating in Jewish practices? The Church was clearly stepping up its attack on Judaism to enhance and expedite a total break with Judaism. To accelerate that process the charge of “Christ Killers” against Jews was stepped up as well. The “blood libels” — the accusation that Jews ritually murdered Christian children to extract blood for religious practices — is evidence of the intensification of attacks against the Jews.


But there was that pesky New Testament, a thoroughly Jewish document, as Anglican priest Bruce Chilton has noted: “It became clear to me that everything Jesus did was as a Jew, for Jews, and about Jews.”

If Christians had access to the Bible in its entirety, not only the limited editions that the clergy presented, they might have noticed what leaped out at me: The word “Jew” appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of these citations in the Gospels. The term “Christian” never appears in the Gospels at all, for the obvious reason that there was no Christianity during the life of Jesus — only Judaism, in which he and his family, disciples and followers were immersed. Readers of the Gospels might also have noted that when Jesus wasn’t addressing the “multitudes” (of Jews) he was teaching in synagogues and was attending Jewish holy day celebrations. And his disciples called him rabbi. Since the Gospel writers couldn’t keep Judaism out of Jesus’ life story and ministry — without the Judaism there would be no story — they invoked the ban on the Bible while Christianizing Jesus with selective and edited stories that they conveyed to the public.


The Christianizing process, along with erasing Jesus’ Jewish identity, continued throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods. It is dramatically illustrated in classical artworks, in which Jesus and his family show no trace of a connection to Judaism. In this ethnic cleansing of Judaism they are pictured as fair-skinned Northern Europeans living in palatial Romanesque settings surrounded by later-day Christian saints and Christian artifacts and practices — images completely alien to their actual Jewish lives in a rural village in Galilee.


But today, in a new era of reconciliation, Christians and Jews are recognizing the strong connection between the two religions. Some Christians are adopting Jewish practices like the Passover Sederand the Jewish marriage ceremony under the chuppah (canopy), and couples are signing the ancient Jewish ketuba (marriage contract). Others are visiting synagogues to relive the experience of Jesus.


Several years ago 170 Jewish scholars and leaders from all four branches of Judaism issued a statement calling on Jews “to relinquish their fear and mistrust of Christianity and to acknowledge Church efforts in the decades since the Holocaust to amend Christian teaching about Judaism.”


When Timothy Dolan returned from the Vatican after his elevation to cardinal in 2012, he appeared on the popular TV show “The View.” Barbara Walters, one of the hosts, playfully said to the affable Cardinal, “I’m crazy about you. I’m thinking of converting. Do you take Jewish girls?” Dolan responded, “My favorite girl of all time was Jewish.” “Who is that?” Walters asked with a surprised look. “Mary” Cardinal Dolan answered softly. His casual remark suggests that the celebration of common ground can trump doctrinal differences.

[BartSimpson]

At the end of the repression of any information to the contrary a CONSENSUS of Catholic leaders would have told you that Jesus had never been a Jew.

But as more people had access to the raw data they learned that the consensus was wrong.