patrick.net

This is pretty big news. Why is it not plastered all over my yahoo page?

I don't know how big it is when it's like the third or fourth time.

just_passing_through says

Why is it not plastered all over my yahoo page?

Yahoo's been hacked, your newsfeed is now controlled by George RR Martin. Be prepared for lots of links to flaccid penis stories...

www.youtube.com/embed/qwFXeTxbGf8

Do you have a better source than a British tabloid that covers the text of its articles with advertising?

Just google: NOAA john bates

Lots of hits:

https://www.google.com/#q=noaa+john+bates

Just not show my the main media...

NuttBoxer says

Yahoo's been hacked, your newsfeed is now controlled by George RR Martin. Be prepared for lots of links to flaccid penis stories...

Yeah, I know. They can have that email addy I haven't used since the 90s. Since then though I haven't found a website/tool where I can list a bunch of stock tickers on one side and get news threads on the other side, like this example:

Maybe someone here knows better. Come to think of it I should've asked patnet a long time ago. It's just a splash page for me. I know the news is seriously biased and I can follow up on my own. But! If there is a better option I'm all ears.

Ironman says

Did you try Marketwatch.com

No but now that you point it out I'm going to try it - thanks! Seems closer than anything else I've found. I've spent a bit of time on a couple of occasions looking for a replacement but nothing like:

1. If you squint on the left side you'll see two groups: NET and ILMN - being able to organize and group is nice.
2. I can add background info such as price paid, number of shares etc., and quickly see gains/losses across I shit load of stocks by simply scrolling. Yahoo has taken away a lot of features over the years though. I can't see total gain/loss over the holding period - only the current day or something like that these days.
3. On the right you can only see 'Yahoo News - Top Stories', but I've got other content such as 'San Mateo News', 'Science News' etc., things available for plug-in.

If I deny it ,it doesn't exist.

When you are protecting religion, the ends justify the means!

Hey, if the politicians want Global Warming from the scientists, they'll get Global Warming. If they want Global Freezing, they'll get Global Freezing.

The politicians control the money tit, and the scientists fall down and worship the money tit.

Automan Empire says

Do you have a better source than a British tabloid that covers the text of its articles with advertising?

The daily mail is a very respected source of journalism. Look at some of the award winning stories they have published. https://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/ridiculous-daily-mail-headlines?utm_term=.xkQox5kmW#.jkbe53JNd

The article authors have not been accused of fudging the data to come to a predetermined conclusion. They are advised of using data from a third party program before that program was verified. They were also advised of not archiving their data correctly while riding to publish before the Paris talks. This is not an issue of fraud. It's an issue of being too careless and not respecting Bates' standards for caution.

Well it isn't the first time this happened...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam

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.

Macropodia says

Well it isn't the first time this happened...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam

I'm not seeing where curveball is promoting global warming with fraud, Want to post the section of the article that talks about that?

YesYNot says

This is not an issue of fraud. It's an issue of being too careless and not respecting Bates' standards for caution.

Of course it's fraud. All global warming research is fraud. It doesn't exist. We know this because climate change and global warming have been carefully researched and extensively documented by the two Freds.. Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. They say it doesn't exist.

These would be the very same two Freds that spent 20 years providing research that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Funded by the tobacco industry. Now they have spent 10 years providing research that climate change doesn't exist. Funded the oil industry. You can't ask for more scientific integrity than that.

BTW the two Freds are phd's in astrophysics. Cancer and climate are certainly research topics that they are experts on.

bob2356 says

BTW the two Freds are phd's in astrophysics. Cancer and climate are certainly research topics that they are experts on.

Hey, why don't you just cut to the chase and post another fraudulent picture caption. You'll forgive me if I don't double check your story and just assume it's BS.

PCGyver says

Who ever doesn't believe the globe is warming is an idiot.

I like your points, but as to this, as long as there's fear-mongering alarmists attempting to empty my pockets with threats of underwater planet that never comes true, call me an idiot.

Pretty good analysis here by Snopes. Spoiler, yes, they find the claim total BS.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data

I'm sure this is the grand conspiracy cover up. It is so cold outside right now.

NuttBoxer says

bob2356 says

BTW the two Freds are phd's in astrophysics. Cancer and climate are certainly research topics that they are experts on.

Hey, why don't you just cut to the chase and post another fraudulent picture caption. You'll forgive me if I don't double check your story and just assume it's BS.

I would expect no less. Actually looking things up is totally contrary to the conservative philosophy of it's true because I believe it should be true.

If for some obscure reason you actually wanted to know something (hahahaha) this "story" is quite well documented in Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right chapter 8 starting at page 208. I'm sorry that this is an actual book not a video or comic strip so it will be very heavy going for you.

Or if you think it's bs do you own research and enlighten us as to why it's BS. hahahahaha

Rew says

I'm sure this is the grand conspiracy cover up. It is so cold outside right now.

Damn, who would ever believe it get's cold in the winter.

Rew says

Spoiler, yes, they find the claim total BS.

Fake news. Anything that disagrees with it's true because I believe it should be true is always fake news.

"Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source"

(just sayin)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

Rew says

Pretty good analysis here by Snopes. Spoiler, yes, they find the claim total BS.

Which time?

marcus says

"Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source"

(just sayin)

Who came up with the data again? The Daily Mail? Ohh, they just reported the story.

bob2356 says

I would expect no less.

Here's what I expect from you...

bob2356 says

yep, look at all the endangered species coming back in the cuyahoga circa 1969. It's amazing how well species come back in a pool of burning toxins.

There is a vast global conspiracy to elevate humanity to higher states of informed opinion.

NuttBoxer says

Who came up with the data again? The Daily Mail? Ohh, they just reported the story.

First off this is wrong. They're quoting people that say one data set is better than another and if you look at everyone's data, what's going on is in fact alarming.

It's not like you are interested in doing some homework. You were just excited becasue you liked the headline, and it fits what you wish to be true. Seems like it might be little more than a paid Koch brothers fake news story.

Whether it was fraud, or the researchers were just "careless" it still means that their results are horse shit and not to be trusted. When you're dealing with tiny temperature gradients, a rounding error can be the difference between significant data and worthless garbage.

Meanwhile the drought in California is definitely over, with more rain on the way. Cooler temperatures this winter have had the predictable result.

"Whether it was fraud, or the researchers were just "careless" it still means that their results are horse shit and not to be trusted"

So, one person makes a claim and you immediately accept it as fact?

marcus says

what's going on is in fact alarming.

So you admit your a global warming alarmist. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

joeyjojojunior says

So, one person makes a claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
http://www.naturalnews.com/052179_global_warming_science_fraud_globalist_control_agenda.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Maybe you missed the title of this thread JJJ

NuttBoxer says

Global Warming Alarmists Lie About Data AGAIN

Quigley says

Meanwhile the drought in California is definitely over, with more rain on the way. Cooler temperatures this winter have had the predictable result.

I've been thinking about this. We live in what is basically high desert, prone to drought most of the time. But since we're by the Pacific, we're bound to get some storms(el nino) every few years. This sounds very cyclical, but the attitude now days seems to be reactionary and alarmist to an extreme. Not to make things better, just to raise water prices, or impose more fines.