/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8867728
Oh look, another gulluble retard believes anything he reads on TDM and doesn't bother to fact check it.

Another dumb """""skeptic""""" who fails at being a real skeptic in every single way.

Your news is months old and was debunked the same day that Bates made his claims. By the way, direct quote from your "IMPECCABLE REPUTATION" Bates.
>The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.
>I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

Blown the FUCK out yet again by your own previous sources. I don't expect you to reply to this after getting annihilated yet again, go ahead and leave the thread in embarrassment, and fuck off back to your echo chamber at >>>/pol/ where you can post things like this and all the gullible idiots lap it right up without question.

The absolute best part about that shitty TDM article is that they don't even understand what a baseline is, and compared two datasets on two different baselines to manipulate the graph, typical climate change denier tactics (see pic related).

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/major-global-warming-study-questioned-defended-45328903
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

>>8668104
Base Lines Matter!

As it turns out though, BASE LINES MATTER!
>This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly. As the chart below shows, when you correctly put the two datasets on the same baseline (eg, with respect to the 1961-1990 period), you find no offset in recent years between the two, though there is slightly more warming in the NOAA dataset due to the higher weight they give more reliable buoy data in their analysis.

This is basically what the David Rose article in the DM did, he used two different data sets with different baselines and compared them together.

When you use the two datasets with the same baseline, surprise, they correlate very well.