4 ms·

It was published a day after the Mail article was, and that so it's not unreasonable to assume that readers are aware of its content - ie, that such a whistlebl

It was published a day after the Mail article was, and that so it's not unreasonable to assume that readers are aware of its content - ie, that such a whistleblower exists.

nonbel 10y ago
Here is the title: "Article names “whistleblower” who told Congress that NOAA manipulated data" In the original source there is a giant picture of him at the top: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World... Why is his name so important to someone who would have either not heard of this, or just read an article prominently featuring the guy? It is definitely odd.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  From the Ars piece: >[This] latest article is noteworthy in that it appears to reveal the supposed “whistleblower” who has been cited by the US House Science Committee in its ongoing clash with climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Mail made Bates a subject of import, and another outlet is responding. What is odd about this, exactly?
  - nonbel 10y ago
    Thanks, I didn't read that article (only the headline... I skipped to the blog post to hear from the "horses mouth") and was unaware there was an ongoing mystery whistleblower. It is all news to me.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    Well, I found this. Now it looks like that part of the Ars article is "fake news": "Yesterday, Bates said he was contacted by the Science Committee for the first time only after the story broke. He said he has not communicated with anyone there before and was not a whistleblower for the committee previously but that he expected to be invited to Washington to testify at a future hearing." http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
    - cholantesh 10y ago
      That part of the Ars article is restating a claim made in the Daily Mail article. Also, Lamar has been making the claim for awhile [1] that he has whistleblowers in the NOAA, which is where the link comes from. [1] - http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans-oversight-an-effort-to-hobble-climate-science http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans...
      - nonbel 10y ago
        >"That part of the Ars article is restating a claim made in the Daily Mail article." Wow, this is why I ignore the news. What a clusterfuck. However, I cannot find the part you are talking about in the Daily Mail article after a search. Can you quote it?

It was published a day after the Mail article was, and that so it's not unreasonable to assume that readers are aware of its content - ie, that such a whistleblower exists.

nonbel 10y ago

Here is the title: "Article names “whistleblower” who told Congress that NOAA manipulated data" In the original source there is a giant picture of him at the top: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World... Why is his name so important to someone who would have either not heard of this, or just read an article prominently featuring the guy? It is definitely odd.

cholantesh 10y ago
From the Ars piece: >[This] latest article is noteworthy in that it appears to reveal the supposed “whistleblower” who has been cited by the US House Science Committee in its ongoing clash with climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Mail made Bates a subject of import, and another outlet is responding. What is odd about this, exactly?
- nonbel 10y ago
  Thanks, I didn't read that article (only the headline... I skipped to the blog post to hear from the "horses mouth") and was unaware there was an ongoing mystery whistleblower. It is all news to me.
- nonbel 10y ago
  Well, I found this. Now it looks like that part of the Ars article is "fake news": "Yesterday, Bates said he was contacted by the Science Committee for the first time only after the story broke. He said he has not communicated with anyone there before and was not a whistleblower for the committee previously but that he expected to be invited to Washington to testify at a future hearing." http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
  - cholantesh 10y ago
    That part of the Ars article is restating a claim made in the Daily Mail article. Also, Lamar has been making the claim for awhile [1] that he has whistleblowers in the NOAA, which is where the link comes from. [1] - http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans-oversight-an-effort-to-hobble-climate-science http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans...
    - nonbel 10y ago
      >"That part of the Ars article is restating a claim made in the Daily Mail article." Wow, this is why I ignore the news. What a clusterfuck. However, I cannot find the part you are talking about in the Daily Mail article after a search. Can you quote it?