Press regulators censure English climate science deniers for lying

M

Micawber

Verified User
Claims in the Mail on Sunday that global warming data had been exaggerated in order to secure the Paris climate change agreement have been criticised by the UK’s press regulator.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation censured the newspaper for publishing a story in early February that was flawed in key aspects. The news story suggested that data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world’s gold-standard sources of weather and climate research, had been treated in such a way as to suggest greater warming than had really occurred.


Sign up to the Media Briefing: news for the news-makers
Read more
The research hinged on the “pause” in global warming that had been seized on by dismissers of climate change as evidence that the concerns of mainstream scientists had been overblown. The so-called pause or hiatus has long been a contentious issue in climate science. The outlier year of 1998 was exceptionally hot, owing to a strong El Niño, and these record temperatures were not surpassed for several years.

This allowed sceptics to claim that global warming had stopped until 2013. However, as mainstream scientists pointed out, the years following 1998 still exhibited an upward temperature trajectory compared with the long-term average, so while the upward march of temperatures was slightly slower, and some years were cooler than others, talk of a “pause” that suggested an end to global warming was misleading."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ures-mail-on-sunday-for-global-warming-claims

I envy a country that can crack down on ignorance peddlers.
 
Micawber said:
Claims in the Mail on Sunday that global warming data had been exaggerated in order to secure the Paris climate change agreement have been criticised by the UK’s press regulator.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation censured the newspaper for publishing a story in early February that was flawed in key aspects. The news story suggested that data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world’s gold-standard sources of weather and climate research, had been treated in such a way as to suggest greater warming than had really occurred.


Sign up to the Media Briefing: news for the news-makers
Read more
The research hinged on the “pause” in global warming that had been seized on by dismissers of climate change as evidence that the concerns of mainstream scientists had been overblown. The so-called pause or hiatus has long been a contentious issue in climate science. The outlier year of 1998 was exceptionally hot, owing to a strong El Niño, and these record temperatures were not surpassed for several years.

This allowed sceptics to claim that global warming had stopped until 2013. However, as mainstream scientists pointed out, the years following 1998 still exhibited an upward temperature trajectory compared with the long-term average, so while the upward march of temperatures was slightly slower, and some years were cooler than others, talk of a “pause” that suggested an end to global warming was misleading."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ures-mail-on-sunday-for-global-warming-claims

I envy a country that can crack down on ignorance peddlers.
Click to expand...

I pity a country that supports the abandonment of the scientific method in order to promote a global social justice agenda.
 
ocean515 said:
I pity a country that supports the abandonment of the scientific method in order to promote a global social justice agenda.
Click to expand...

Lying in a fishwrap about science is not the scientific method. Censure, to be disambiguated from censorship for the intellectually deprived, is therefore not abandonment of the scientific method. It is the reassertion of it. It also has the serendipitous effect of proving Cornholio's threads parroting that same lying article were necessarily a bunch of unadulterated anti-scientific baseless and repudiated bullshit.
 
I can't believe that Macabre is still clinging to the lie that is man made global warming, yet pounds away on his computer using fossil fuels to spout his lies. Seems contradictory to me

Tell us dear OP, what do you do to live a greener life? What have you given up to save mother erf?

You see, I hear libtards like you talk a good game, but I never see you act. Sort of like GayRod spouting on here about helping the poor and needy, but when a calamity hits his neighborhood does he help? Nope, he takes his spawn to Disney World for some R&R
 
Anyone who claims the Mail knows more about science than a cow's arse has never read the archaic drivel.
 
ocean515 said:
I pity a country that supports the abandonment of the scientific method in order to promote a global social justice agenda.
Click to expand...

If NOAA believed they had been wronged they could pursue libel and slander remedy. Fact is they knew they had been screwing around and got caught so they just had to let it go.
 
Corazón said:
The Mail was reporting the concerns by climate scientist John Bates, who worked for NOAA, about their manipulation of data. Bob Ward is a well known climate alarmist who complained to IPSO about the article. So effing what? John Bates was right, NOAA had been adjusting the data to get rid of the pause. Anyway, enough of the bullshit from the likes of arseholes such as McAwful. Here is the man himself, without any filters, explaining his position on climatologist Judith Curry's website.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Click to expand...

this is true. I dont see how they can be censored for this.
 
Corazón said:
The Mail was reporting the concerns by climate scientist John Bates, who worked at NOAA for 30 years, about their blatant manipulation of data. Bob Ward is a well known climate alarmist who complained to IPSO about the article. So effing what? John Bates was right, NOAA had been adjusting the data to get rid of the pause. Anyway, enough of the bullshit from the likes of arseholes such as McAwful. Here is the man himself, without any filters, explaining his position on climatologist Judith Curry's website.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Click to expand...

You are banned from this thread. Cease and desist.
 
tsuke said:
this is true. I dont see how they can be censored for this.
Click to expand...

Not censored, censured. Cut and dried. They read it, and if it's all lies, they censure them. First it was cut, then it was dried.
Censure means, for lack of a good synonym "officially scolded." To censor is to enjoin from expressing oneself.

If the US had a press regulator, Fox would have to shut down shop. All they do is lie.
 
Corazón said:
The Mail was reporting the concerns by climate scientist John Bates, who worked at NOAA for 30 years, about their blatant manipulation of data. Bob Ward is a well known climate alarmist who complained to IPSO about the article. So effing what? John Bates was right, NOAA had been adjusting the data to get rid of the pause. Anyway, enough of the bullshit from the likes of arseholes such as McAwful. Here is the man himself, without any filters, explaining his position on climatologist Judith Curry's website.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

It was David Rose. The mail was officially groaned. A royal imprimatur to STFU. A "stifle it edith" under Government aegis and auspices. Prevaricators, mendacity, fraud, climate science deniers...
 
Not all of the complaints made by Ward against Rose’s article were upheld, and some of those upheld reflected narrow technical points, for instance over the archiving of data.

i wonder what they were actually censured for.
 
Micawber said:
Claims in the Mail on Sunday that global warming data had been exaggerated in Q
I envy a country that can crack down on ignorance peddlers.
Click to expand...

Question? "IF" climate change can be addressed by man.....just what kind of % is man responsible for and just how do you suggest man reduce/change the weather to stop Global Warming (my bad, its not global warming any longer as the earths temperature has not changed in 15 years)....err....climate change?

What are you going to do go back to the pre-industrial age? If you do remove every fossil energy source...what are you going to do with the 3rd world poor people who depend upon fossil fuels to simply exist? Do you suggest sacrificing them at the alter of mother earth? What about your laptops and cell phones made from fossil fuels...what about all the meds that depend upon fossil fuels?

Explain, just what is YOUR PLAN? In reality if you are not a wealthy nation you can't afford to be concerned about the weather you are to busy simply existing. Do you assume that China and Korea are going to destroy all their fossil fuel technologies while the US becomes a 3rd world nation existing as they did in the 1850s? Fact: With all the green technology that the tree huggers can offer today....it would provide but 4% of the United State's energy requirements that provide security to you green nuts.

And suppose the sea levels do rise by 5ft..10ft etc., it would only effect the coastal dwellers. What? Are you suggesting they would remain there and drown over a 100 year period? The BS about sea levels rising in just a few years is just that BS....Al Gore predicted by 2014 the coasts would be flooded. Still waiting for that inconvenient truth to come true.:palm:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top