and you spend time caring about crap like this? dude, get a life! Do you honestly think people are interested in this topic or those links?

[Edited on 2/8/2017 by BoytonBrother]

When the Trump administration and it's minions dedicate themselves to not lying for 24 hours
I might get interested in something they have to say.

If the only way for them to advance their point is to lie, they need to drain themselves out of the swamp.

Government isn't ruining this country, and political parties are not ruining this country, but cheating, LYING, greedy SOBs are.

I read your links - looks like it was seized on and blown up. The retired NOAA scientist was not a whistleblower, he was griping in a blog about how his boss at NOAA managed data. This is typical of the kind of hysteria we will be seeing as our tabloid administration lurches from witch hunt to witch hunt, creating newsflap fever.

The following is cut and paste from the article you posted: so if you think it is leftist MSM bs it is on you:

"Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was 'no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.'

'It's really a story of not disclosing what you did,' Bates said in the interview.

'It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form.'

Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing 'fast and loose' with land and water temperature data."

______________________________________________________________________________________

Interesting selective editing to skew the facts.
However, just like obama did with CENTCOM and DIA intelligence data on Al Qaeda and ISIS, he manipulated the climate data to fit his political agenda.

This is just another reason why so many people do not trust the left-wing politician's rants.
When Al Gore tells us that by now NYC and Florida would be underwater and people living their look outside they laugh at the global warming whackjobs.

....people living their....

...people living "there"...

The Daily Mail, the source, is a British tabloid. Mule, you have no credibility here. Maybe pay attention to the lies the current President is spreading daily.

Wrong!

Interesting selective editing to skew the facts.

The bit I cut and paste was to show that the retired scientist is not a "whistleblower" and

Whatever, you ought to be proud anyone actually took you seriously enough to follow one of your idiotic links. I read the article, their were no facts in their, only muckraking hysterics from a House Science Committee hack with zero academic background, a British tabloid, all blowing fartsmoke out there butts. Their was no substance to there allegations whatsoever.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

NOAA's climate data was falsified to fit obama's political agenda.
This was common practice during his failed administration.

Global warming is a hoax.

Try going with actual science. You seem to essentially believe paid for pseudo-science. Oh well, some people are easily fooled by those with a political agenda and that are in it for the money.

Y’all tried “we are all going to die from nuclear radiation” and that was crap. Then you tried “the next ice age was upon us and then the global warming hoax.

What is up next, global annihilation by space aliens?

sorry my friend, i just plain disagree.

This is great stuff. Once again, Mule posted links he did not read. Once again, Mule finds out the links don't contain what he though they did. Once again, ule tries to bluster his way through it. Once again, he fails.

It's all muledouche knows.

At least he's consistent.

and you spend time caring about crap like this? dude, get a life! Do you honestly think people are interested in this topic or those links?

[Edited on 2/8/2017 by BoytonBrother]

You don't seem to get it, so I'll lay it out again. (By the way, jkeller should give condescending bonus points for this - lol) The media is divided into political camps. If you read only one side, you only get half the debate. However, you are right from what I've read, in that the majority of people have higher concerns than global warming.

jkeller...her's one for you... https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/

I am not sure why you wanted me to read that. The headline says one thing, but the article says something much different. It basically says that the Industrial Revolution model of the past 150 years must change. I agree with it. Only if we adapt to the changes can capitalism survive, but changing and adapting has been the way we have avolved since the beginning of man.

And the Al Gore disciples speak and continue to be manipulated by his hologram.

Suckers.

John Bates: Climate Scientists Versus Climate Data

As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s. In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. –John Bates, Climate Etc. 5 February 2017

“In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’ “Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. –Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), U.S. Committee On Science, Space and Technology, 5 February 2017

I have championed science all my adult life. It is humankind’s greatest calling. That is why I deplore those who drag down its reputation by breaching its codes of conduct for political reasons, and I have no time for those excusing these enormities. They foment anti-intellectualism and play directly into the hands of people such as Mr Trump. Under the Obama administration,” says Professor Judith Curry, Dr Bates’s colleague, “I suspect that it would have been very difficult for this story to get any traction.” Yikes. Dr Bates calls for more ethics teaching in science and for “respectful discussion of different points of view” — which we were emptily promised after climategate. It is time for the many brilliant scientists who are discovering great insights into quasars and quarks, Alzheimer’s and allergies, into neurons, fossils, telomeres and ice ages, to “take a public stand and be counted” against the politicisation of some science within their own ranks. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 6 February 2017

The University of Cambridge has become embroiled in an internal battle after executives at the UK’s richest educational institution clashed with academics over proposals to divest from fossil fuels. Last month the university’s governing body, which is made up of senior academic and administrative staff from its 31 colleges, passed a motion to divest Cambridge’s £5.8bn endowment from fossil fuels. But in an unprecedented break from university tradition, Cambridge’s council, its executive arm that sets policy, has said it will not follow through with the governing body’s calls for divestment within the next 12 months. The council is reluctant to cut investments in fossil fuel companies without assessing how this would affect funding for its teaching and research programmes. –Attracta Mooney, Financial Times, 5 February 2017

http://climatechangedispatch.com/john-bates-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/