Discussion:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science -- The NOAA ?Corrected? Data They Didn?t Like
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2017-02-07 23:44:37 UTC
Permalink
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM

The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.

A former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has stepped forward to expose the malfeasance behind
a key climate report issued just before the United Nations' Climate Change
Conference in 2015.

The whistle-blower, Dr. John Bates, led NOAA's climate-data records
program for ten years and reveals stunning allegations in a lengthy Daily
Mail exposé posted February 4. His main charge is that the federal
government's top agency in charge of climate science published a flawed
but widely accepted study that was meant to disprove the hiatus in global
warming.

Bates accuses the study's lead author, NOAA official Tom Karl, of using
unverified data sets, ignoring mandatory agency procedures, and failing to
archive evidence - all in a "blatant attempt to intensify the impact" of
the paper in advance of the conference. The study, "Possible Artifacts of
Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus," was published in
Science magazine in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders
gathered in Paris to hammer out a costly global pact on climate-change
mitigation.

It refuted evidence from other climate-research groups that showed a
major slowdown in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012; the
slowdown was a sticky little fact that threatened to undermine the very
raison d'être of the conference. Climate activists were sweating over the
acknowledgment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in
2013 that "the rate of warming over the past 15 years . . . is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951." The IPCC walked back its own
predictions from 2007 that short-term temperature would rise between 1 and
3 degrees Celsius.

The IPCC in 2013 "concluded that the global surface temperature 'has
shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998
to 2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years' and the rise in global
temperatures was 'estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the
trend over 1951-2012.'"

So Karl, the former head of the NOAA office that produces climate data,
worked with a team of scientists to challenge the IPCC findings and prove
that the hiatus did not exist. He claimed to have developed a way to raise
sea-temperature readings that had been collected by buoys: He would adjust
them by using higher temperature readings of sea water collected by ships.

"In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across
the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,"
said one of the study's co-authors. It was therefore necessary, the NOAA
scientists held, to "correct the difference between ship and buoy
measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

Now get ready to be shocked. This dubious methodology concluded that the
warming trend for 2000 to 2014 was exactly the same as it was for 1950 to
1999: "There is no discernible (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the
rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first
15 years of the 21st century."

The study then concluded that the IPCC's statement about a slower rise in
global temperature "is no longer valid." (It takes a lot of chutzpah to
out-climate the international climateers.) The study was cheered by
climate activists and their media sympathizers around the world, but Bates
says the study had major problems.

"They had good data from buoys," he told the Daily Mail. "And they threw
it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships [a natural
warming source]. You never change good data to agree with the bad, but
that's what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer."

Bates also said the study ignored satellite data. And in the most Obama-
esque move, Bates said that the computer used to process the data
"suffered a complete failure" and that none of the data had been archived
or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that Karl's paper
cannot be replicated or independently verified.

According to Bates, the NOAA is drafting a new version of the report that
will reverse the flaws in Karl's report. For now, Science magazine is
standing by its publication of Karl's study, claiming it underwent
"rigorous peer review" and dismissing as "baseless and without merit" any
notion that the study was rushed to coincide with the Paris conference.

(The Cato Institute has knocked Science for its biased global warming
coverage, but that's a story for another day.) None of the data had been
archived or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that
Karl's paper cannot be replicated or independently verified. In a separate
post on the blog Climate Etc., Bates laments that government scientists
routinely fail to save their work: "The most critical issue in archival of
climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive
and document their data."

Bates notes that the very scientists who have failed to save data are now
suddenly concerned that the Trump administration might destroy climate
data. Bates is not fighting this fight alone. Representative Lamar Smith,
chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has been
asking NOAA for all communications related to Karl's report, but the
agency has refused to cooperate.

In October 2015, Smith's committee issued subpoenas for the documents;
NOAA released some technical papers but not the requested correspondence,
arguing that taxpayer-paid scientists don't have to disclose their emails
with other taxpayer-paid scientists about a taxpayer-paid study.

In a statement Sunday, Smith applauded Bates's courage for speaking out:
"Dr. Bates' revelations and NOAA's obstruction certainly lend credence to
what I've been saying 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."

With a sympathetic administration in power, Smith should now be able to
get to the bottom of how the Karl study was conducted and who else helped
move it along. And despite the personal attacks on his character and
credibility, Bates's actions could have long-lasting repercussions, not
the least of which could be to encourage others to speak out about what's
been going on at federal scientific agencies. It's long overdue.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-
scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa?
utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=kelly
--
"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
David Hartung
2017-02-08 02:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
This article:

https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1

Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
Chom Noamsky
2017-02-08 03:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
I would say not Peter Thorne, who has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Unum
2017-02-08 06:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by David Hartung
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
I would say not Peter Thorne, who has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Why would his employment have anything to do with it? Seemed very
knowledgeable, didn't he. Much better informed than David Rose of
the Daily Mail, right? And OMFG, a step-by-step utter destruction
of the muckraking garbage that chumpsky and his buddies creamed
their jeans over, hilarious!
Chom Noamsky
2017-02-08 06:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by David Hartung
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
I would say not Peter Thorne, who has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Why would his employment have anything to do with it? Seemed very
knowledgeable, didn't he. Much better informed than David Rose of
the Daily Mail, right? And OMFG, a step-by-step utter destruction
of the muckraking garbage that chumpsky and his buddies creamed
their jeans over, hilarious!
Your only written communication skills are juvenile sophistry and
invective. Try upping your game to the adult level.

***

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Unum
2017-02-08 23:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by David Hartung
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
I would say not Peter Thorne, who has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Why would his employment have anything to do with it? Seemed very
knowledgeable, didn't he. Much better informed than David Rose of
the Daily Mail, right? And OMFG, a step-by-step utter destruction
of the muckraking garbage that chumpsky and his buddies creamed
their jeans over, hilarious!
Your only written communication skills are juvenile sophistry and invective.
Try upping your game to the adult level.
Yap yap, personal attack means you lose. And has Judith Curry ever been
directly employed by the NOAA?
AlleyCat
2017-02-09 01:07:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:45:27 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Yap yap, personal attack means you lose.
Then you have lost EVERY discussion we've ever had, basement boy. (see
below)

Yap yap yap... it's not a personal attack... it's an observation. Like you
screechers wrongly equating observation of temperature and climate as MAN
being responsible, so too are you wrong here.


[giggle]

ratboy

Denialist scum

you sad little moron

Couldn't find it? Even with both hands?

How's batshit crazy working out for you, ratboy?

You lose.
--
"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Unum
2017-02-09 03:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:45:27 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Yap yap, personal attack means you lose.
Then you have lost EVERY discussion we've ever had, basement boy. (see
below)
Yap yap yap... it's not a personal attack... it's an observation. Like you
screechers wrongly equating observation of temperature and climate as MAN
being responsible, so too are you wrong here.
Yap yap yap, spamming ratboy begs someone to support
his nonsense because he sure can't do it.
Post by AlleyCat
[giggle]
ratboy
Denialist scum
you sad little moron
Couldn't find it? Even with both hands?
How's batshit crazy working out for you, ratboy?
You lose.
Obviously this weighs heavily on ratboy, he keeps all of these
remarks in a drawer where he can brood upon them. Still wondering,
you sad little moron, how's batshit crazy working out for you?
AlleyCat
2017-02-09 03:36:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:03:56 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Still wondering,
you sad little moron, how's batshit crazy working out for you?
Not as well as yours, obviously. You believe what The NOAA and NASA feeds
you. Do YOU believe that temperatures should be measured in the 100,000ths
of degrees, like your little butt buddy, Kymberly?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tee hee. Still can't argue... he knows he'll lose every time.
--
"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Wally W.
2017-02-08 13:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by David Hartung
Post by AlleyCat
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
the evidence.
https://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Says otherwise. The question is whom do we believe?
I would say not Peter Thorne, who has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Why would his employment have anything to do with it? Seemed very
knowledgeable, didn't he. Much better informed than David Rose of
the Daily Mail, right? And OMFG, a step-by-step utter destruction
of the muckraking garbage that chumpsky and his buddies creamed
their jeans over, hilarious!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxical_laughter
Paradoxical laughter is an exaggerated expression of humour which is
unwarranted by external events. ... It is associated with altered
mental states or mental illness, such as mania, hypomania or
schizophrenia, and can have other causes.

<http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/31/green-psychologists-confirm-climate-alarmists-are-making-themselves-mentally-sick-doomer-depression/>
It can be convincingly argued that mental illness is indeed a chronic
problem among many climate alarmists and their followers.


There is too much smoke coming from the greenie camp for their not to
be a fire:
Climategate
Climategate2
Shukla-gate
John Bates' exposé
Daily fallacies/evasions from greenie-philes in this group.
Catoni
2017-02-08 03:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Nobody! Study the history of our planet and Solar System.

Study Paleoclimatology. Learn ! You have a brain and the capability of independent thought!

PhD not required to use common sense and independent study and thought.
Bret Cahill
2017-02-08 16:16:39 UTC
Permalink
The tRUMP Administration has vowed to "destroy" _National Review_.

It's hard to see a downside to this development.
R Kym Horsell
2017-02-08 16:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The tRUMP Administration has vowed to "destroy" _National Review_.
It's hard to see a downside to this development.
Sure don't seem to get even a single point of the story right.
Another month echoing around in the hillbilly press and it'll
be unrecognizable.
--
Bates [sometimes called a "data scientist" and sometimes a "data archivist"
and in the Dogpatch Sentinel "a respected climate scientist"]
said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most
concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising
issues of transparency and availability. [...]
However 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."
Loading...