/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8653539
>>8653544
>Turns out it was all Fake Data.
See the other thread (where you made a nearly identical post) for responses to Goddard's stupidity:
>>8654944
>>8655023

As for the whole David Rose article on the Daily Mail, please refer to this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
Also, a further response to the article from Hausfather:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

As for 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) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
From a colleague that actually worked on the NOAA paper.
I really think you should take a few steps back, and not jump to conclusions based on things you read on the Daily Mail or climate denial blogs. Always make sure to vet and fact check your information.