BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. "pausebuster" paper was hyped, broke procedures

They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

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.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

,,,

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

A blatant attempt to intensify paper’s impact 

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

karl-peterson

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

MoS2 Template Master
The misleading ‘pausebuster chart’: The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph – which relies on the ‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed ‘Pausebuster’ paper. The blue line is the UK Met Office’s independently tested and verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record – showing lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘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.’

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

 

Read the entire extraordinary expose by David Rose here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48

0 0 votes
Article Rating
892 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 4:30 pm

Wonder if the WB would have come forward without a new sheriff in DC.

Eric H
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 4:56 pm

“No discussion about Paris…”
There should be an immediate request by the Trump admin for all Karl et al. email communications to be searched for the keyword “Paris”… before they have a chance to “crash” their computers.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 5:05 pm

Also, add the search term: “city which must not be named”

ATheoK
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 5:59 pm

Perhaps too late Eric H.

” ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’”

It sounds like they’ve started Clintonizing any evidence.
It also sounds like the computer used to process the software is not a unique inviolable production machine, but a run-of-the-mill desktop on somebody’s desk.
No computer, no trial data, no code edits, no lists of input variables, no corrections or fudged records…
I do agree with your thinking though; that the real FBI should carry out all remaining computers and email servers for proper diagnosis.
Whistleblower evidence should suffice for obtaining the warrant.
The pictures above do make Karl look, well, sort of paleo anthopogenic; and Peterson does look like someone who uses other people’s hard work while publicly demeaning those people.

markl
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 6:57 pm

And the software?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 6:31 pm

ATheoK February 4, 2017 at 5:59 pm
Maybe not. It was their responsibility to preserve date. Any civil unrest and damages can be dump trucked at their door.
Ristvan! your take.
michael
if i spelled wrong sorry

Graham
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 6:59 pm

“No discussion about Paris…”
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

ATheoK
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 7:11 pm

“Mike the Morlock February 4, 2017 at 6:31 pm

“ATheoK February 4, 2017 at 5:59 pm”

Maybe not. It was their responsibility to preserve date. Any civil unrest and damages can be dump trucked at their door.”

Bates’ mentions that nothing of the early runs, was saved.
Not the data, not the program, not the inputs, not the adjustments, not the metadata…
Karl’s current response requires the government or anybody must prove every accusation against him.
It is time to thoroughly depose all NOAA personnel and their equipment involved or related to temperatures or climate.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 7:33 pm

ATheoK February 4, 2017 at 7:11 pm
All that you said to a point is true to a point. But civil damages due to irresponsible actions are another animal if the Gov. allows the suit..

Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 8:25 pm

As a life long professional in field of “electronic data” in legal proceedings, may I suggest that the only bounding criteria be by date. Such dates to corresponded to those dates as those to which the responsive party had access. Though extending the possible responsive period to cover both a reasonable preceding and anteceding period to those described could prove useful.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 9:37 pm

They don’t need to write about Paris; it’s tattooed on their foreheads and consumes their brains.

Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 10:00 pm

“Bates’ mentions that nothing of the early runs, was saved.”
He doesn’t say that nothing was saved. He says that something wasn’t archived. That is a formal procedure, and he complains that it wasn’t done in time. He says at Climate Etc that he hasn’t been able to confirm that it has been archived, not that it wasn’t ever.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Eric H
February 4, 2017 11:39 pm

What they probably did was run the data using various statistical techniques, hunting for ones that would yield the “right” answer. Then they’d, naturally, dispose of all evidence of the other runs. “Paris” was not mentioned at all during all this. However, “We’re going to Tampa with the data” was on everyone’s mind.

Greg
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 12:51 am

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

Oh dear, sounds like UEA’s ” the dog ate my homework” excuse all over again.
what ever happened to Rep Lamar Smith’s subpoena ?

Nigel S
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 12:52 am

Have they looked in the ‘Censored’ folder? Or maybe the ‘Ilsa Rick’ folder?

Bill Marsh
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 4:43 am

I would like to understand the nature of this ‘complete failure’. Was it a hard drive crash? Where is this ‘computer’? The data on hard drives can be recovered without too much expense. Does that mean that there was only one version of the software and it only existed on one computer? I find that pretty hard to believe, having worked in software development and ITSEC in several government agencies including a scientific one (NSF). That one incident screams ‘cover up’ to me.

sciguy54
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 6:18 am

And look for UNFCCC or 21. If that was a direct quote it looks like someone was parsing words carefully.

emsnews
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 7:31 am

Remember Rosemary Woods? 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  Eric H
February 5, 2017 9:56 pm

There were EIGHT writers.
Either they all have back-ups of code and data………… .or
They NEVER examined that code and data.
Think about that. !!!!

MarkW
Reply to  Eric H
February 6, 2017 8:32 am

Bill, I was taken aback by that statement as well. As someone who has worked with computers for over 30 years, I can attest that if the failure was on the mother board, then all hard disks still have their data, with the possible (and it is a small possibility) of the sector that was being written to at the instant the mother board went belly up.
If it was the disk that went bad, then most of the data on that disk is still recoverable.
This excuse makes no sense.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 5:26 pm

“You want to depose me, counsel for Karl, et al? Make — my — day.”
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/22/3CD7498B00000578-4192182-image-a-60_1486248052731.jpg
Science Realist Hero: John J. Bates
(much more edifying to look at than the above (in article) two scoundrels)

Latitude
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 5:26 pm

……….without a new sheriff in DC
Climate Fraud Whistleblower Rewards Program
The time has come for whistleblowers to come forward and expose climate fraud.
Guest post by Kent Clizbe. Government employees willing to tell the truth about climate can be handsomely rewarded.
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/climate-fraud-whistleblower-rewards-program/#more-14451

commieBob
Reply to  Latitude
February 4, 2017 7:43 pm

There is a bounty for all kinds of fraud perpetrated against the federal government. A whistle blower can get a portion of any funds recovered. Kent Clizbe is apparently a bounty hunter who, presumably for a fee, will assist people in getting such a reward. The alarmists seem to be accusing him of stalking Michael Mann.
Normally I provide links. In this case, something has set off the (admittedly paranoid) security features in my browser. I mistrust some of the sites I have visited and won’t link to them until I can confirm why the browser became unhappy. If you’re going to google Kent Clizbe, I would advise caution.

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
February 5, 2017 6:17 am

They all spent years trying to explain the pause….
…then Karl comes along and says there is no pause
Irony:……..Karl just said that climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about

J Mac
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 6:26 pm

Exaggeration, malfeasance, and deceit in an NOAA ‘climate science’ publication?
I’m Shocked…. Shocked, I tell you! };>)
Drain The Swamp!

ATheoK
Reply to  J Mac
February 4, 2017 7:12 pm

I am beginning that parts of that particular swamp have any bottom.

Reply to  J Mac
February 4, 2017 11:41 pm

I doubt it too, Atheok.

Nigel S
Reply to  J Mac
February 5, 2017 1:19 am

Not until I’ve got my share of the winnings.

Crakar24
Reply to  J Mac
February 5, 2017 1:22 am

I hope its not like the one on oak island

michael of Oz
Reply to  J Mac
February 6, 2017 3:57 pm

swamps…all the way down to the swamp we crawled out of.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 6:28 pm

Now that is the icing on the cake! Integrity and HOT!

Graham
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 7:04 pm

Fair point, but infinitely more important is that he did.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 7:19 pm

someone Quick!!!!
Get a bucket of ice water to throw on Janice before she melts!!

TG
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 7:20 pm
Janice Moore
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 7:39 pm

Mr. O’Bryan (smile). Unlike Pamela, I do not find Mr. Bates especially attractive. I ONLY POSTED THE PHOTO TO PUT THE HERO FRONT AND CENTER. He is not bad looking. He’s just not my type, I guess. Shrug.
(and I’m glad you gave me a chance to make that clear, Mr. O’Bryan — in case a certain someone happens to see that and also thinks as you did about why I posted the photo)

jones
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 8:06 pm

Yup and knowing that the new boss now has unfettered access to all data, reports, e-mails etc (on demand) has to be rather….focusing.
The old-guard must have worn out an awful lot of shredders between Nov 9th 2016 and midday Jan 20th 2017.
Would be a shame if some “denier” in the system kept any copies….

afonzarelli
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 10:28 pm

(looks like it’s pam who’s in need of a gator aid shower)…

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 4, 2017 11:31 pm

The problem is that the entire MSM carried the news of the Pausebuster paper with great fanfare, and it already had its effect, as on the Paris Accord. Now this, I fear, will get virtually no mention by the MSM. Hopefully at least the conservative media and conservative blogosphere gives it good coverage.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 6:43 am

Same with everything. Big fanfare then small print to admit they were wrong. They don’t want to be seen as falling for these scams every time one comes along because they fail to check anything. Surely even a half competent journalist would see that taking readings from a modern state of the system like Argo and rounding them up to match a completely random set of readings from an uncontrolled fleet of ships is a bit suspect. The real story which they aren’t interested in is why this has happened.

Goldrider
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 7:02 am

File it under “Fake News.” Trust in the media is currently running at 6% among Republican voters–for good reason.

Steve T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 6, 2017 6:19 am

Goldrider
February 5, 2017 at 7:02 am
File it under “Fake News.” Trust in the media is currently running at 6% among Republican voters–for good reason.

Are you sure? This seems a bit high to my BS detector! 🙂
SteveT

schitzree
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 8:35 am

Worn out shredders? Hell, it sounds like they even burned the original computer their program was run on, just in case.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 9:46 am

Forrest Gardener on February 4, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Retirement can be a very liberating thing for those with a conscience.
Well, Forrest Gardener: to this statement I agree at 100 %.
But … after having had a short look at the graph belowcomment image
it was easy for me to reproduce it using data I regularly download from
NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2016.csv
and
HadCRUT: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
Forrest, this graph published by Dr Bates is incorrect (in fact, flawed would be the more correct term, as he made himself use of it).
Why?
Simply because it gives you the impression that the two plots in the graph are deltas relative to a common base of 14 °C, and thus are comparable absolute values. But they aren’t at all.
Here is the reproduction of the two time series using Excel:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170205/dnpyt2dy.jpg
Both plots, the red one for NOAA and the blue one for HadCRUT, do not represent absolute values but anomalies with respect to these institutions‘ own baseline period (called climatology)
– NOAA: 1901 – 2000
– HadCRUT: 1961 – 1990
To make things even more understandible, I added in thin white a plot of satellite data based of course on anomalies wrt to their own baseline period:
– UAH6.0: 1981 – 2010
Following Dr Bates opinion concerning NOAA vs. HadCRUT, everybody would say: „Wow! Look at these flawed surface datasets! Incredible!“ because they seem to show, over the same period, by far higher temperatures than does the satellite record.
Now look at the following graph, in which all plots represent temperature anomalies wrt the same baseline period (the one chosen by UAH):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170205/xayva229.jpg
Not only you can see that the NOAA data does not contain anything flawed compared with HadCRUT!
You also see that though the satellite record undoubtedly shows lower trends, it is far nearer to surface records than many pretend.
NOAA shows, for 1997-2016, a higher linear trend than that of HadCRUT:
– NOAA: 0.161 ± 0.014 °C / decade;
– HadCRUT: 0.133 ± 0.015 °C / decade.
But this is, as can be seen on the graph, due to HadCRUT being both warmer than NOAA between 1997 and 2008 and cooler between 2008 and 2016.
A last detail: look at the graph below showing the (correctly computed) plots, for again NOAA vs. HadCRUT, but this time during the period 1880 – 2016:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170205/d38fgq85.jpg
Tle linear trends for this longer period:
– NOAA: 0.069 ± 0.001 °C / decade;
– HadCRUT: 0.066 ± 0.001 °C / decade.
So i’m sorry, Forrest: the truth imho does not seem to be on the side of Dr Bates, regardless wether his ill-made comparison of NOAA with HadCRUT was due to incompetence, inadvertance or intention.

John@EF
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 11:15 am

Good catch,Bindidon. The graph is completely dishonest and misleading. Comparisons using a common baseline is so incredibly elementary … although some here have always had difficulty regarding baselines.

John@EF
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 11:26 am

@Forrest Gardener
The graph is included to show a level of alleged nefarious adjustment that does not exist. The graph is dishonest, period. Own it.
There are other threads here with discussions suggesting that the findings in Karl, et al, are proving consistent relative to new independent research. Please do dodge that, too.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 2:01 pm

John@EF on February 5, 2017 at 11:15 am / February 5, 2017 at 11:26 am
1. The graph is completely dishonest and misleading. Comparisons using a common baseline is so incredibly elementary
John@EF, you simply pretend things without presenting any scientific falsification of what I wrote: that is the signature of what I use to name “unsound skepticism”.
If, according to your reply, „Comparisons using a common baseline is so incredibly elementary“, where then is the problem?
2. The graph is included to show a level of alleged nefarious adjustment that does not exist.
Here too: no valuable falsification. “Nefarious”, hmmh?
What did you really mean, John@EF? What about data, arguments?

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 2:16 pm

Forrest Gardener on February 5, 2017 at 10:37 am
… irrelevant to any point under discussion
See below.
Some things never change do they?
What isn’t changing, dear Forrwest Gardener, is your attitude which consists in concentrating the discussion on unprovable political blah blah in order to avoid any discussion at scientific level.
WUWT is a science site, Forrest. Even if you rather view it, like do so many, as a political instrument. I can live with that, even far better as does for example Nick!

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 2:35 pm

Bindidon,
I agree that one need to compare apples to apples, thus one need to show the data relative to the same baseline.
The focus should be on the last period where the paper of Karl e.a. is relevant: the period just before the 2015/16 super El Niño. That is where the “adjustment” of Karl had the largest influence.
HadCRU4 made a similar “correction” as NOAA for that period: the difference between HadCRU3 vs. HadCRU4 is 0.1°C for the period 1997-2015, mainly in the last part with no trend at all in that period for HadCRU3 and both satellite data, while NOAA/GISS has the steepest trend now…

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 2:45 pm

Bindidon — the graph in question is in the Mail news article, but I don’t see where it says that this graph originated with Dr. Bates. It may have been tacked on by the journalist.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 2:48 pm

HadCrut is junk anyway. (Each time I see HadCrut referenced I have to think of the infamous harry.readme file. How anyone can take any data from that institution seriously I cannot fathom.) Showing that something resembles HadCrut just proves that it is junk, also.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 4:10 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen on February 5, 2017 at 2:35 pm
Thany you and dank u wel Ferdinand for your reply. I remember your GHG guest posts here years ago, I learned lots of that.
I nevertheless have a double problem concerning the reply.
1. On the one hand, you correctly write about Had3 >< Had4
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170206/6yrq57w3.png
but to be honest I don't understand the background of this quasi-eternal discussion about well-known facts.
I remember to have read somewhere:

HadCRUT4 … includes an increased number of land stations, as well as more up-to-date records available from land stations that were already in HadCRUT3. These updates to the land station database are described in the CRUTEM4 paper. HadCRUT4 also includes a larger number of sea-surface temperature records and new bias adjustments for sea surface temperature measurements. These bias adjustments for sea-surface temperature records are discussed in detail in part 2 of the HadSST3 paper.

(See: Hemispheric and large-scale land surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010).
2. What now concerns “… while NOAA/GISS has the steepest trend now…”, I do not quite understand what you mean when I look at the graph below:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170206/aiehv9bi.jpg
That satellite readings in the (no longer so very) lower troposphere are below those of surfaces (and below those of nearly all IGRA radiosondes operating at the same hPa level): isn’t that evident?
Only JMA shows lower trends than all other surface records. And that might well be due to their really poor coverage in the warming Arctic, isn’t it?
But maybe I misunderstood your remark.

clipe
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 5:30 pm

“Forrest, this graph published by Dr Bates is….blah, blah, blah.
Bindi, the graph is not from Dr.Bates. It’s from The Daily Mail.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg

John@EF
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 7:48 pm

@ Bindidon February 5, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Bindidon. Hahahaaa. What the hell? I’m agreeing with your point. I started my comment with ” Good catch, Bindidon.”, meaning good observation on your part. I take it English isn’t your first language. Didn’t you notice that those on the other side of the argument were attempting to give me grief?

John@EF
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 8:02 pm

@ Forrest Gardener February 5, 2017 at 7:51 pm,
There is no excuse for the the graph used prominently by Anthony in the lead post – None. He should delete it with an accompanying explanation.

John@EF
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 8:19 pm

Well, Forrest, I only take advice about science from those who have an inkling of what it means. Thanks, anyway.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 5, 2017 11:46 pm

Another hyjack of a thread without any contribution https://www.google.at/search?q=b+in+didon&oq=b+in+didon&aqs=chrome

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 12:19 am

John@EF
Sorry John, I thoroughly misunderstood your reply 🙁
Please simply ignore what I wrote. Bare nonsense!

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 6:17 am

Bindidon,
The further you go in the past, the more uncertain the data are. Overall one can say that 1910-1945 and 1976-1998 were fast warming, 1946-1975 shows a small cooling and after 2000 there is the “pause”.
That was visible in all datasets, until the Karl e.a. paper, where suddenly incomparable sea surface data were incorporated in the trends by NOAA and GISS. HadCRU did follow at a somewhat lesser pace, as you can see: not only new stations, but also “corrected” sea surface data. The latter are mainly from the Southern Ocean, where ships lanes and thus data are sparse.
The sea surface (*) data are from sea ships (air and water, mostly motor inlet), buoys and “in filled” from satellite surface data with a model. That is the exact moment that the trends between surface data and satellite data start to differ…
The net result is that both surface data show a trend 1997-2015, while the satellite data don’t. That is opposite to what the greenhouse gas theory – and the climate models – expect: the increase mainly in the tropical higher troposphere should be faster (the “tropical hot spot”) than the near-ground temperature increase.
As the Karl e.a. paper was clearly meant to give a boost to the Paris agreement, it is quite relevant that they overruled all scientific principles of peer review, transparency and reproducibility…
(*) measurements are very divergent: seawater measured from the surface in wood buckets, canvas, metal, later motor inlet (meters deeper), air temperature vs. water temperature,… Satellites measure the “skin” temperature, that is a fraction of a mm of the water surface: several degrees warmer in the sun. equal when cloudy, cooler at night,… The difference with the rest of the water mass also depends of mixing speed (wind and waves)… Karl e.a. shuffled them all on one heap…

TA
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 6:40 am

Bindidon wrote: “You also see that though the satellite record undoubtedly shows lower trends, it is far nearer to surface records than many pretend.”
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote: “HadCRU4 made a similar “correction” as NOAA for that period: the difference between HadCRU3 vs. HadCRU4 is 0.1°C for the period 1997-2015, mainly in the last part with no trend at all in that period for HadCRU3 and both satellite data, while NOAA/GISS has the steepest trend now…”
Two good reasons for using the satellite charts as official, and tossing the most recent surface temperature charts.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 8:24 am

Regarding the graph comparing GISS with HadCRUT4 and offsets: I used WFT to offset GISS downward by the difference between GISS’s 1961-1990 average and HadCRUT4’s 1961-1990 average. Also, I did a bit of smoothing. It is obvious that from 1997 onward, GISS warmed about .1 degree more than HadCRUT4 did and more steadily than HadCRUT4 did. Have a look at:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/mean:7/from:1997/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:7/from:1997.png
The linear trends: For HadCRUT4 it is about .135 degree/decade, and for GISS it is about .168 degree/decade.
For a bigger picture, this time from 1950 onward, again with GISS offset so that its average during the HadCRUT4 baseline period of 1961-1990 is the same as that of HadCRUT4:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/mean:7/from:1961/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:7/from:1961.png
Meanwhile, this is HadCRUT4.5. HadCRUT4 has had its adjustments since HadCRUT4.2, showing recent years being slightly warmer than it used to. At least HadCRUT4’s changes are small compared to those of GISS changing from using ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 12:49 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen on February 6, 2017 at 6:17 am
Mijnheer Engelbeen, you were years ago a convincing teacher. Today, you unfortunately simply ruminate, like so many others, the pausebuster story, without any really scientific arguments.
Sorry, but it gets a bit boring.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 2:07 pm

Donald L. Klipstein on February 6, 2017 at 8:24 am
Regarding the graph comparing GISS with HadCRUT4 and offsets: I used WFT to offset…
At least did you use a correct offset… and thus I do no wonder that you obtain the same plots as those you see in my comment’s graph.
My question is: why should GISS do the same job as does HadCRUT?
Anyway, a few years ago, lots of people complained about huge differences between GISS and HadCRUT(3) for the period 1979-2012.
Today, GISS’ trend for 1979-2016 is 0.174 °C / decade, and HadCRUT(4.x) shows inbetween 0.172.
And – oh wonder – suddenly all these people have left this once soo pretty good satellite era, and now replaced it by the more interesting period 1997-2016!
Simply because while GISS shows there 0.175 °C / decade, HadCRUT offers them a convenient 0.133.
What will they do in five years, when Hadley comes out with a new HadSST4, and CRU does with a TEM5 fully integrating some brand-new infilling techniques?
My answer, Donald L. Klipstein: they’ll all switch to JMA.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170206/vehtuldt.jpg
1979-2016: 0.140 °C / decade; 1997-2016: 0.129… Woaaah, cool!
But one day, somebody at Tokyo’s Climate center will go retired, and…

Reply to  Bindidon
February 6, 2017 3:41 pm

in response to *Griff*:
Outside of the skeptic blogosphere, no on has heard of ‘Climategate’. That was also a non-story.
Don’t be too hard on this Fool. He’s *great* entertainment, and seems to keep everyone busy taking him seriously! Treat him for laughs and nothing more. He is otherwise a waste of cyber-space.
Hmmm …. on reflection, perhaps he does have *some* utility …. if Griff is typical of the Alarmists’ mind-set, his asinine pronouncements serve to PROVE the hypothesis that the GW crowd are no better. Keep at it Griff … you’re proving valuable points, asinine pronouncement by asinine pronouncement.
Ross King, MBA, P.Eng. (ret’d) 1453 Beddis Road, SaltSpring Island, B.C., V8K2E2, Canada (250) 537-0666
“The older I get, the better I was….”
On 6 February 2017 at 15:26, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Bindidon commented: “Donald L. Klipstein on February 6, 2017 at 8:24 am > Regarding the graph comparing GISS with HadCRUT4 and offsets: I used WFT to > offset… At least did you use a correct offset… and thus I do no wonder > that you obtain the same plots as those you se” >

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 2:23 pm

TA on February 6, 2017 at 6:40 am
Two good reasons for using the satellite charts as official, and tossing the most recent surface temperature charts.
Beware of the bear TA!
Don’t forget july 2011, as Roy Spencer suddenly told us, without any warning, that RSS’ data definitely went too cold, and introduced UAH5.6 showing quite a lot of warming on Earth in comparison to the concurrence.
It took him four years to drive back from what he today probably will consider a blind-alley. But he is always good for some new surprise. He is so terribly incorruptible…

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 3:35 pm

clipe on February 5, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Thanks clipe – my bad!

1sky1
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 4:12 pm

Bindidon does make a valid point about the necessity of using a common datum level in comparing time-series. But he misses the most crucial consideration of data validity wrt to the desired measurements! With the same data base of UHI-corrupted station records and scattered one-off observations of SST by ships of opportunity blindly incorporated into both NOAA and HADCRUT global indices, we get only comparisons of rotten hybrid fruit from the same bushel, rather than of independent baskets of apples. The fact that neither index shows any hint of a global mutidecadal mininum in 1976 is ample evidence of a data base unfit for climatic purposes.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 5:08 pm

1sky1 on February 6, 2017 at 4:12 pm
With the same data base of UHI-corrupted station records…
Did you ever generate data and graphics out of the GHCN datasets? I think you did never, 1sky1.
Because if you ever had, you would have had, like me, the simple idea of separating the dataset, for the Globe or for one of its regions or latitude zones, into what was produced by
– rural stations with minimal nightlight
and what was produced by
– the rest.
Using a UNIX editor or any tool supporting regular expressions you obtain such a separation in a few seconds…
As a vast majority of the claims about UHI concerns CONUS, I show you the separation’s results below.
1. CONUS 1880-2016
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170119/dwkkaukn.jpg
2. CONUS 1979-2016
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170207/f97lkml9.jpg
where in addition to the GHCN separation you see UAH6.0’s regional CONUS data (btw, what an amazing fit).
This, 1sky1, is exactly what Steve Mosher tell us since years: UHI is a non-problem.
I didn’t analyse any SST datasets up to now, but I wouldn’t wonder if I could manage to refute your claims there as well.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 6, 2017 5:34 pm

1sky1 on February 6, 2017 at 4:12 pm
The fact that neither index shows any hint of a global mutidecadal mininum in 1976 is ample evidence of a data base unfit for climatic purposes.
Well, 1sky1: as an European, I think that the most influent multidecadal oscillation here is the AMO, and that therefore CET, the Central England Temperature record, should keep track of such a minimum around 1976, as AMO has some high influence on climate in England.
But…
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean_sort.txt
doesn’t tell us anything about that.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 1:38 am

1sky1 on February 6, 2017 at 4:12 pm
I replied with two comments (concerning UHI and this “1976 minimum claim) but unfortunately both did not appear.
[wrong again -mod]

tony mcleod
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 3:30 am

One can think of 4 plausible reasons for Rose’s error. He was either …
1) too lazy to check
2) unable to comprehend that the choice of baseline makes precisely no difference to the trend line
3) deliberately attempting to mislead his readership
4) He got the graph from the GWPF, so in that case it’s undoubtedly 3).

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 5:57 am

Bindidon on February 7, 2017 at 1:38 am
[wrong again -mod]
For the moderation: I’m sorry, but at 1:38 am (10:38 MET) the comments really weren’t visible yet.
But it isn’t so important after all, though discussing with 1sky1 is always interesting, far more than with those who feel the need, good grief, to name me a troll 🙂

1sky1
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 1:56 pm

Did you ever generate data and graphics out of the GHCN datasets? I think you did never, 1sky1.
Did you ever stop presuming that everyone else is as much a climatological novice as you are, Bindindon? FYI, in my work supporting major engineering projects I was generating and analyzing regional data sets throughout the globe long before the advent of GHCN. And I was comparing various urban station records with proprietary measurements made professionally at various pristine sites prior to project development.
You bring nothing new to the table besides misconceptions.

1sky1
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 1:59 pm

Oops, this blockquote failed to show up in my last comment:

Did you ever generate data and graphics out of the GHCN datasets? I think you did never, 1sky1.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 2:40 pm

[snip]

Bindidon
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 7, 2017 3:06 pm

Forrest Gardener on February 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Bindi, the fastest way to stop being labelled a troll is to stop being a troll.
Thanks for stalking me all the time. Maybe one day you manage to stop your scienceless comments as far as I’m concerned.
I on my side apologise for having myself initiated that by replying to one of your comments. Won’t happen again!
In Germany, forrest trolls are called “Waldschrat”. That word is so pretty beautiful, smacks so pretty bang in the middle, is so hard to exactly translate (‘hobgoblin’ doesn’t match at all) that it in fact should be integrated into the english language, like are kindergarten or leitmotiv.
[“Maybe one day you manage to stop your scienceless comments” …. and perhaps one day you’ll learn to get along with people here -mod]

PaulH
February 4, 2017 4:35 pm

Is there *any* reliable climate data anywhere?
SMH

george e. smith
Reply to  PaulH
February 4, 2017 6:57 pm

Not surface based.
Aliassed all the way up to the cloud !
g

Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2017 8:14 pm

and models all the way down

MarkW
Reply to  PaulH
February 6, 2017 8:40 am

Even the raw ground based data isn’t “reliable”.
All the problems with both macro and micro site contamination as has been documented by our host make even accurately recorded data highly questionable.
Then there are the problems with undocumented equipment changes and site moves.
Finally site maintenance is questionable for most stations.
(One of the things that started Anthony on this quest was an experiment he ran years ago, where he tested the difference between whitewash and modern latex paints. Stations used to be painted with whitewash (calcium carbonate based???) and over time this was switched to latex based paints.
Anthony’s experiment showed that white wash was a better reflector of IR than latex paints. As a result stations painted with latex were warmer by a few tenths of a degree. The station records would usually indicate when they were repainted, but none of them indicated when they switched over from white wash to latex.)

Reply to  PaulH
February 6, 2017 11:14 am

Nobody knows. After the IPCC adjusted the original data, they threw the original away. There is no way of knowing what they did. They can’t provide the original data either.

markl
Reply to  rishrac
February 6, 2017 12:00 pm

I’m betting there are duplicate sets all over the world that people have been using and I highly doubt it can’t be corrected. Simply match two sets for verification and restore.

Reply to  markl
February 6, 2017 12:14 pm

There probably are. They haven’t been collected in one place. The bigger problem will be verification, the originals are rotting in a landfill in Denmark. Because of their belief system ” they just know it’s co2″ they have done the world and science a great disservice. We’ve spent the last 20 + years on co2 and no closer to understanding why it gets colder or warmer. There are a lot of good ideas, however.

Jared
February 4, 2017 4:37 pm

Climate Science is not Science, it needs a name change to Climate Disgrace. These guys give Science a bad name.

Reply to  Jared
February 4, 2017 4:49 pm

Jared @ 4:37
I totally agree. The sad thing is that it’s going to take real science decades to recover from the climate scandal. In the meantime many aspiring scientists will have decided to be accountants/lawyers/chiefs, etc instead. We have plenty of them and not enough young scientists.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
February 4, 2017 5:41 pm

Can you imagine accountants and lawyers politicizing their areas – oh, wait, never mind.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
February 4, 2017 7:11 pm

Accountants or even lawyers who behave like climate change™ practitioners would normally end up behind bars.

Nigel S
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
February 5, 2017 1:22 am
D.I.
Reply to  Jared
February 4, 2017 4:57 pm

Climate ‘Seance’ would be a better name,sitting around a table calling the Spirits for direction.

Reply to  D.I.
February 5, 2017 5:40 am

My new favorite phrase!

MarkW
Reply to  D.I.
February 6, 2017 8:41 am

I’ve been pursuing spirits, but not for direction.

Reply to  D.I.
February 6, 2017 11:17 am

If they had done a Seance, they would have gotten something right. It would have been an improvement.

ATheoK
Reply to  Jared
February 4, 2017 6:00 pm

Jared:
Excellent summation.

Huhne
Reply to  Jared
February 4, 2017 11:39 pm

Climate+Science ~ Witch+Doctor

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Huhne
February 4, 2017 11:56 pm

Or, as they say in symbolic logic, Climate Science : Science = Witch Doctor : Doctor

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Huhne
February 5, 2017 11:15 am

Giviing witch doctors a bad name!

Goldrider
Reply to  Jared
February 5, 2017 7:02 am

“Lysenkoism” works for me.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Goldrider
February 6, 2017 10:30 am

Trofim Karl

J Mac
Reply to  Jared
February 6, 2017 6:23 am

Climate Malfescience

NW sage
February 4, 2017 4:42 pm

Dr Bates revelation is an AWESOME reveal. The integrity of the scientific process when run by the government is forever tainted. Thorough, careful and complete are words that will never be associated with government science again. WOW!

pameladragon
Reply to  NW sage
February 4, 2017 5:45 pm

“Government science” has been shown to be an oxymoron. But we all sort of knew that all along, didn’t we?
PMK

Dav09
Reply to  pameladragon
February 4, 2017 8:13 pm

If by “we” you mean many – but by no means all – of the folks around here in the ‘granting for sake of argument that it actually exists, AGW is still highly exaggerated and nothing to worry about’ camp, you could be right. Apart from them – even considering only those who know what “oxymoron” means – I’m afraid you’re way too optimistic.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  pameladragon
February 4, 2017 11:57 pm

Eisenhower had it right.

TA
Reply to  pameladragon
February 5, 2017 7:17 am

“Eisenhower had it right.”
Yes, he did.

GW
Reply to  NW sage
February 4, 2017 6:16 pm

That’s why President Reagan tapped outsider Dr. Richard Feynman to investigate the Challenger disaster. Reagan KNEW NASA would cover up the truth, which wasn’t that the O-Rings had a problem, but that the political environment within NASA was such that they gambled with the knowledge in order to attempt the virtually closed launch window, despite the adverse temperature conditions.

Dan Sage
Reply to  GW
February 7, 2017 4:46 pm

It has always been my suspicion that someone in the Reagan Whitehouse put pressure on NASA to launch, because they had a telephone call to the first teacher in space planned for the State of the Union Address that night. Just something to think about.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  NW sage
February 5, 2017 7:37 pm

This load of bollocks goes beyond bad science. This is fraud, sponsored and sanctioned by the executive branch.

charles nelson
February 4, 2017 4:43 pm

I’m shocked. And stunned. Shocked and stunned.
(not really!)

Reply to  charles nelson
February 4, 2017 6:14 pm

Yes, I think most people here knew all along that this deceit was going on.
To summarize…
“breached its own rules on scientific integrity”
“based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data”
“never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process”
“maximised warming”
“minimised documentation”
“standards were flagrantly ignored”
“tried to combine two previously separate sets of records”
“violated NOAA rules”
“computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure”
“NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up”
“rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda”
Hopefully this time there will be consequences for this type of scientific malfeasance and criminal activity (e.g. unauthorized destruction of government property).
Now for a second thing that I also expect…Queue the trolls and all their arguments about why none of this matters, pointing at ice, pointing at other manipulated data as proof, blah, blah, blah.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 4, 2017 6:58 pm

EXCELLENT summary, Boulder. T. McL. below should read it (much better than mine, though mine might be more his speed….. heh)!

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 4, 2017 8:40 pm

Also Implicit in those statements are misdeeds at Science Magazine by the editorial staff.

Phil R
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 4, 2017 8:52 pm

excellent, concise summary, but seems to be missing one important one (or extension of complete computer failure):
“The Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

afonzarelli
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 4, 2017 10:42 pm

“…pointing at ice…”
Which will only serve to remind us that Karl is just the “tip of the iceberg”…

Nylo
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 5, 2017 12:11 am

+1!

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 5, 2017 8:04 am

They are out in force at Climate Etc, where Dr. Bates published his full expose first person.

Reply to  charles nelson
February 4, 2017 8:41 pm

Also Implicit in those statements are misdeeds at Science Magazine by the editorial staff.

co2islife
February 4, 2017 4:44 pm

It’s about time. I knew sooner or later someone was going to develop a conscious.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/
Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
Climate “Science” on Trial; Data Chiropractioners “Adjust” Data
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-data-chiropractioners-manipulate-data/

Eric Simpson
Reply to  co2islife
February 5, 2017 2:16 am

Great links!
As far as the so called “consensus,” it’s a consensus of ideology, not of science.
Climate “science” = leftists run amok:
“[Climate action] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
“Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.” -George Monbiot

co2islife
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 4:56 am

Thanks a million for the comment. Your comment “consensus of ideology, not of science” is the best way I’ve seen it described. Thanks for that comment from Monbiot, I’m sure that will be worked into an article some time in the future. Once again, thanks a million for the comment.

MarkW
Reply to  co2islife
February 6, 2017 8:44 am

Or come close enough to retirement to allow their conscience to escape from the closet where it had been locked up.

co2islife
Reply to  MarkW
February 6, 2017 8:46 am

Yep, that however was a rather recent event, and the Obama administration should have crucified him for speaking out. By bet however is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

February 4, 2017 4:44 pm

Kudos to Dr. John Bates. I respect his integrity. Bravo Dr. John!

polski
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 4, 2017 5:27 pm

After 40 years of service what else does Dr. John Bates know? Now that he is retired does he have some memoirs to publish that we may enjoy!

RockyRoad
Reply to  polski
February 4, 2017 9:40 pm

….he should screen his visitors very carefully.

Jonas N
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 5, 2017 1:17 am

I wonder if he had stepped forward under a different election outcome?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 6, 2017 2:36 am

And bravo, US President Trump for creating a climate in which people can come forward with the truth.

John in Oz
February 4, 2017 4:45 pm

It’s worse than we thought (climate ‘science’, that is).

Reply to  John in Oz
February 5, 2017 3:20 am

Actually, it is EXACTLY as we thought.
Source: Tony Heller
https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/comment image

TA
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 5, 2017 7:27 am

That GIF is the perfect illustration of just how dishonest the surface temperature adjusters have been.
They took the surface temperature chart from “nothing to see here” to “hottest year evah!” with their false manipulations and have caused a lot of hardship on the people of the world as a result of this fabrication and false reality they have created. They have fooled a lot of people, caused a lot of money to be wasted, and it will take many years to repair the damage they have done in so many areas. The manipulators deserve to be punished for what they have done.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 5, 2017 1:48 pm

Allen, if possible, could you slow down the shifts? They change a bit to fast for me to follow.
Or, maybe, leave the “shifts”image as it is but in addition include each as a static graph?

Plato
February 4, 2017 4:46 pm

Like a train wreck in slow motion, the madness slowly unravels….

Jack DuBrul
February 4, 2017 4:47 pm

Can I trademark the term lientist?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jack DuBrul
February 4, 2017 4:58 pm

Good. I like my coinage, “climbatologist”, for all the careerists in the field.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Jack DuBrul
February 4, 2017 5:35 pm

LIEntist is great!!
Because, with rare exception, the modern day AGW fear-mongers (as advocates for activists, not true scientists) have all been following the guidance of their early leaders:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
All their lying is done for their leftist cause:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -ex UNEP Director Maurice Strong [pioneer of the AGW scare]
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 4, 2017 6:59 pm

+1

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 6:20 am

Collapse of industrial civilization means death for around six billion people.

TA
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 7:36 am

““It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace”
That’s why the Main Stream Media is so dangerous to our free society. Like it or not, the MSM sets the daily narrative, which gives them enormous power and makes them particularly dangerous to freedom when they lie their asses off for partisan political purposes, like they are doing now.
The good news is many more people are getting wise to the lies, but still not enough to quell the insanity on the Left. But it’s early yet. 🙂

D. Carroll
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 9:30 am

I’ve seen some of the statements before, but haven’t been able verify their authenticity? any links?

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 1:22 pm

D. Carroll “any links” Just google fragments from the quotes and it will lead you to links.
The Schneider quote is the most damning to the chicken littles:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989, http://www.azquotes.com/author/21358-Stephen_Schneider

Sometimes the scare-mongering leftists try to obfuscate by saying the larger context exonerates Schneider. BUT the larger context does nothing of the sort:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, 1989
I shortened his full-quote to make it a quick read. But in no way does the larger context above change Schneider’s meaning that they should make up stuff (lie) for the purposes of gaining public support (for their cause).

Gunga Din
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 1:41 pm

TA February 5, 2017 at 7:36 am
““It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace”
That’s why the Main Stream Media is so dangerous to our free society.

When “Freedom of the Press” was written into the First Amendment, the “press”, the source of “News” was not controlled by a few or a few broadcasting corporations.
(Which of them would have aired Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”?)
Back then “The Press” was local papers.
Today “The Press” refereed to would be more along the lines of internet blogs such as this.
Information and opinions presented for the reader to evaluate.
Who fears giving people the facts? Who wants to hides them?

clipe
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 1:46 pm

“The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…. You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”
The cynical description of the organization Greenpeace comes not from some right-winger annoyed at the excess of the environmentalist movement but from Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace and now the director of a rival ecology group, the Sea Shepherd Society.

http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_art_green.html

clipe
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 5, 2017 2:20 pm

The Not So Peaceful World of Greenpeace
(from “Forbes”, Nov. 1991)
Leslie Spencer with Jan Bollwerk and Richard C. Morais
“The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…. You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”
The cynical description of the organization Greenpeace comes not from some right-winger annoyed at the excess of the environmentalist movement but from Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace and now the director of a rival ecology group, the Sea Shepherd Society.
Watson, who left Greenpeace in 1977, was talking about how the organization grew from a ragtag band of hippies to the largest environmental organization in the world, with a membership of 5 million and offices in 24 countries. Not the least ingredient in this success was the clever myth-creation referred to by Watson.
Under its recently departed guru, David McTaggart, 59, the $157 million (1990 revenues) Greenpeace became a skillfully managed business, mastering the tools of direct mail and image manipulation – and indulging in forms of lobbying that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation. Ironical, this, considering that McTaggart marketed Greenpeace as very much the nemesis of the powerful multinational corporation.
The mythic image is of a band of young daredevils hanging off a refinary smokestack or thrusting themselves in the path of the whaler’s harpoon. This image has made a mighty impression. Greenpeace Germany, for instance, second-largest branch operation after Greenpeace U.S.A., had revenues last year of $36 million and 700,000 members, of whom 320,000 permit Greenpeace to automatically debit their bank accounts annually for the dues of 50 deutsche marks ($30).
But all is not peaceful in the inner workings of Greenpeace these days. The myth is fraying a little around the edges. Beginning this spring, German publications have carried revelations of millions of marks of donations being funneled into Greenpeace savings accounts rather than used to fight pollution.
Greenpeace underwent a major shakeup on Sept. 2 with the announcement by its international headquarters in Amsterdam that David McTaggart had resigned as chairman after 12 years in the post. Replacing him was Helsinki civil rights lawer Matti Wuori, 46; McTaggart became honorary chairman and says he will spend his time, among other things, on helping the Soviet Union clean up its environment. The timing was interesting, to say the least. There is some reason to believe that Wuori was brought in as a Mr. Clean to scrub Greenpeace’s now somewhat bespattered image.
Who is this somewhat mysterious David McTaggart, regarded by many as a near saintly figure? McTaggart’s skillful image manipulation begins with his own life story. There is the official version, as told in the 1989 book, The Greenpeace Story, and repeated over the years in many newspaper and magazine stories about the organization. According to this official version, McTaggart was once a successful real estate executive who saw the light at age 39 and decided to save the planet.
This version is myth. People who knew McTaggart in his earlier life say he was a failed real estate promoter who left investors and relatives in the lurch and departed before his projects failed (see box, p. 176). Gertrude Hubertry, mother of the third of McTaggart’s wives, and one of several people who lost money with him, remembers him as a ruthless businessman. “David once told me that when you want something badly enough, you have to be willing to do anything to get it,” she says. “Anything.”
One thing he wanted badly was the leadership of Greenpeace. In 1979 a fierce fight broke out between the Vancouver operation and loosely affiliated rivals in the U.S. over the use of the Greenpeace name. By then McTaggart was active in Greenpeace’s European operation, and he was famous for having been beaten by French agents when he tried to interfere with a French nuclear test. The Vancouver founders filed a lawsuit to win control of the name. Many say it was an open battle between David McTaggart and cofounder and president Patrick Moore. Moore had the support of the Canadians, but the U.S. and European affiliates were squarely in McTaggart’s camp. McTaggart emerged in 1980 with the chairmanship of Greenpeace International. Moore remained head of the Greenpeace Canada affiliate.
Of course, the millions of people who gave money and allegiance to the myth knew little of this internecine battling. There’s a paradox here. Outfits like Greenpeace attack big business as being faceless and responsible to no one. In fact, that description better fits Greenpeace than it does modern corporations that are regulated, patrolled and heavily taxed by governments, reported on by an adversarial press and carefully watched by their own shareholders. There’s little accountability for outfits like Greenpeace. The media treat them with kid gloves. Press Greenpeace and it will reveal that McTaggart’s salary was $60,000, but it won’t say anything about any other forms of compensation – something a U.S. corporation would be compelled to reveal in its proxy statements.
While affiliates like Greenpeace U.S.A. and Greenpeace Germany have their own boards, the real power and much of the money belong to the international organization, which until his resignation was ruled by McTaggart from his olive farm in Perugia, Italy and/or the Greenpeace office in Rome.
Amsterdam has the power because of all the cash upstreamed from the 12 most prosperous national organizations, which must pay a kind of royalty for use of the name. The royalty is set at 24% of their net take from fundraising. Power is further consolidated at the center as no national office can start a campaign without the approval of the international council.
How has Greenpeace used this power? Ruthlessly. There is a kind of ends-justify-the-means mentality at work here. Greenpeace pressured the University of Florida into firing marine biologist Richard Lambertsen in 1986. Lambertsen’s offense: doing research that required tissue samples from whale organs, research that Greenpeace had decided wasn’t scientifically useful. Greenpeace made the preposterous claim that Lambertsen was just a front for commercial whalers. Lambertsen, now at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, says his research was aimed at identifying whale diseases. Greenpeace’s tactics, he says, included trucking protesters to the campus and flying over football games with banners that said “U of F stop killing whales.”
While the media were enthusiastically recording Greenpeace staffers dodging harpoons from Zodiac infratable dinghies, McTaggart was helping to pack the International Whaling Commission.
The commission was formed in 1946 in a treaty among whaling nations to prevent the overhunting of whales. The most closely affected nations were Japan, Iceland, the Soviet Union and Norway, but membership in the commission was open to any country that was willing to pay an annual fee of roughly $20,000 to $30,000 plus the cost of sending its representative to meetings. According to Francisco Palacio, a former Greenpeace consultant on marine mammals, he and McTaggart, working with their friends, came up with a way to bend the commission to the Greenpeace view that there should be an outright ban on whaling.
The whale savers targeted poor nations plus some small, newly independent ones like Antigua and St. Lucia. They drafted the required membership documents for submission to the U.S. State Department. They assigned themselves or their friends as the scientists and commissioners to represent these nations at the whaling commission. For instance, Palacio, a Columbian citizen based in Miami, arranged to be the commissioner from St. Lucia. The commissioner from Antigua was Palacio’s friend and lawer, Richard Baron, also from Miami. McTaggart’s friend Paul Gouin, a Moroccan-born French expatriate living in Nassau, Bahamas, served as commissioner from Panama. According to Palacio, the Greenpeace-inspired commissioners enjoyed an annual all-expenses-paid ten-day trip with a $300-per-diem perk to attend commission meetings. Palacio says the group paid to fly a U.N. ambassador home to talk his government into going along with the plan.
Between 1978 and 1982, Palacio says, the operation added at least half a dozen new member countries to the commission’s membership to achieve the three-fourths majority necessary for a moratorium on commercial whaling, which passed in 1982.
This project cost millions, says Palacio, including the commission membership payments picked up on behalf of cooperating members. “In membership fees the payments amounted to about $150,000 [a year], and then we had all the grease money throughout the years,” says Palacio. The Frenchman Gouin, then in his 30s, was the angel, funneling the funds through a Miami-based “foundation” called the Sea Life Resources Institute. Where did Gouin get that kind of Money? From trading investments, he says.
Greenpeace campaigns, like the save-the-whale one, often seem open and almost spontaneous. But they are carefully orchestrated, beginning with a network of investigators who collect tips from government officials, truck drivers and sympathetic employees at corporate targets of Greenpeace antipollution campaigns. One insider says that the intelligence gathering includes a clandestine operation in Zurich, a point that Matti Wuori denies. This much is clear: With its network of contacts, Greenpeace has turned itself into a vigilante group – vigilant in enforcing antipollution laws, but acting as judge and jury whenever it decides that government enforcers aren’t forceful enough. That little of this is widely understood is not surprising. A sympathetic press has always been a Greenpeace ally.
Greenpeace’s biggest fundraiser was a tragic event that Greenpeace didn’t plan at all. In 1985, French government agents, attempting to thwart a Greenpeace obstruction of nuclear testing, blew up Greenpeace’s ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, New Zealand. Photographer Fernando Pereira, who was on board at the time, was killed. The incident brought instant martyr status to the organization.
Greenpeace was not slow to exploit the publicity. Between 1985 and 1987 Greenpeace U.S.A. revenues tripled to $25 million.
But the martyrdom was somewhat sullied by allegations that Pereira was allied with terrorists. A German intelligence official says that German and Dutch intelligence agencies had files on Pereira describing him as a “contact” of a political front man for the terrorist Second of June Movement gang, and as a contact with the Soviet KGB in planning antinuclear missile protests in Western Europe.
Greenpeace denies these allegations, and says that the stories of the terrorist connections are fabrications planted by a French foreign security agency trying to take the sting out of the ugly event in Auckland.
The truth on that score may never be known, but Greenpeace reaped huge publicity dividends from the tragedy while the police allegations got scant attention in the media. When unfavorable publicity does surface, Greenpeace frequently takes to the courts. In the last year Greenpeace has filed suits against three German publications that have said things about Greenpeace it didn’t like. Feeling free to criticize others, Greenpeace does not seem to feel others have the right to criticize it.
Reykjavik, Iceland-based independent filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson can testify to this. Gudmundsson’s 1989 documentary Survival in the High North shows the struggle between hunting peoples of the far north and environmentalists. It paints a dismal picture of welfare dependency and rising suicide rates among the hunting populations of Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Island, where the seal hunting business was devastated after the successful campaign by Greenpeace and animal rights groups to ban sealskin imports to Europe.
Gudmundsson’s film reexamines evidence produced in 1986 by award-winning Danish journalist Leif Blaedel, which shows that one propaganda film used by Greenpeace was faked by using paid animal torturers. Blaedel cites gruesome scenes in the film Goodbye Joey, which Dirranbandi, Australia, court records had confirmed were faked by its producers. These scenes, he reports, were staged by paid kangaroo shooters who were later fined for torturing kangaroos for the film. Court documents confirm that the film’s fraudulence was a matter of public record in 1983, three years before the last known time Greenpeace Denmark sent it out on request – to Blaedel himself. Greenpeace media director Peter Dykstra says Greenpeace stopped distributing the film in 1983, when it discovered the film’s “integrity problems.”
Greenpeace has tried to silence Gudmundsson, with demands for injunctions and/or damages in the courts of Iceland, the U.K. and Norway. Gudmundsson has spent about $40,000 in legal fees so far.
If Greenpeace’s ends justify such means, what are these noble ends? It’s impossible to say precisely, though unmistakable is a hatred of business and free markets. Greenpeace U.S.A. Executive Director Peter Bahouth told the newspaper In These Times in April 1990: “I don’t believe in the market approach…. It results in treating toxics or pollution as a commodity…. When companies have a bottom line of profit you won’t have them thinking about the environment.”
German environmental consultant Joseph Huber, talking about militant elements in Greenpeace Germany, sums up an informed outsider’s view: “These Greenpeacers do not know what they are longing for. But they do feel the strong need to protest the perceived destruction of the earth by industrialism and capitalism. The Marxist elements are interspersed with a new kind of romanticism and anarchism.”
There is nothing in environmentalism that says it has to be statist and antimarket to work. The Bozeman, Mont.-based Political Economy Research Center, for instance, endorses a property-rights approach to solving environmental problems, and even the mainstream Environmental Defense Fund favors marketable pollution permits. But Greenpeace, at least the pre-Wuori Greenpeace, would have no truck with the free market. Its philosophy is that pollution is a sin, not a cost, and should be outlawed, not taxed – even if that means shutting down industry.
Robert Hunter was a cofounder of Greenpeace and to some its spiritual leader. He is now an environmental filmmaker based in Toronto. In 1979 he wrote a chronicle of Greenpeace, Warriors of the Rainbow. It says: “Machiavellianism and mysticism alike played their parts in the shaping of the consciousness [that Greenpeace] expressed. It embodied at times a religious fervor, at other times a ruthlessness that bordered on savagery…. Corruption and greatness both played their part and both took their tolls.”
Ruthlessness and religion are a combustible mixture, the more so when combined with an absolutist certainty. Greenpeace gives research grants but doesn’t fund research on cleaning up toxic or nuclear wastes. Why? Greenpeace says its role is to prevent pollution rather than cleaning it up. It seems that finding solutions to the safe disposal of such wastes undermines the Greenpeace objective of eliminating the industrial processes that create the waste.
Greenpeace U.S.A. recently commissioned a report from forestry expert Randal O’Toole on the economics of the U.S. timber industry. O’Toole concluded that eliminating government subsidies to the U.S. Forest Service and allowing it to charge recreation fees would reduce the Forest Service’s incentives to overcut trees. According to O’Toole, Greenpeace didn’t allow publication of the study’s recommendations under its name. Says O’Toole, “I had the feeling that someone higher up in Greenpeace didn’t like my conclusions.”
In its money-raising literature, Greenpeace often invokes its allegiance to the nonviolent rhetoric of Mahatma Gandhi and the Quaker notion of “bearing witness.” But Gandhi believed passionately that good ends do not justify evil means; Greenpeace’s devotion to this ideal is questionable.
Take, for example, its support for Earth First, an eco-terrorist group whose methods would have horrified Gandhi – and whose cofounder, Michael Roselle, is now on Greenpeace’s payroll. It is famous for driving spikes into trees, which can injure sawmill workers. (Roselle says Earth First now “discourages” tree-spiking.) When a car bomb explosion led in 1990 to the arrest of two Earth First members injured in the blast, Greenpeace formed an alliance of environmental groups that paid their bail and private investigation fees. Roselle, still an Earth First member, offers the theory that the Earth Firsters were innocent victims of attempted murder by anti-environmentalists. No charges were filed.
It seems clear that Greenpeace’s benign image and name, so redolent of goodness, are a cover for a disdain for capitalism. Not surprisingly, international board member Susan George and military expert William Atkin used to work at the notoriously leftist Institute for Policy Studies.
In many of its utterances, Greenpeace is less an institution dedicated to saving endangered species than it is an advocate of a Big Brother who would run the world the way Greenpeace insiders would like it to be run. This is clearly spelled out in an editorial in the March/April 1990 issue of Greenpeace magazine. The editorial compares Eastern Europe’s command economies to the West’s “savage capitalism.” Mindless of the environmental devastation caused by socialism, the editorial concludes: “From a purely ecological perspective, the two competing ideologies were barely distinguishable.” That outrageous statement would hardly sell in the newly freed countries of Eastern Europe, although Greenpeace has recently opened two offices there, but in the pampered West it apparently finds believers.
Can Greenpeace’s new chairman check this anticapitalistic fervor and bring Greenpeace into the mainstream of environmentalism? Matti Wuori seems to be serious about infusing his more moderate views into the organization – and he plans to create an internal audit unit. But to the extent that he curbs Greenpeace’s worst tendencies, Wuori risks damaging the reputation for militance that has done so much to build Greenpeace’s myth.
_

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 6, 2017 8:47 am

Gloateus, I’ve talked with a number of so called environmentalists who would love to get the earth’s human population under 100 million, by any means necessary.
And have all of those packed into one or two cities with the rest of the world returned to “nature”.

clipe
Reply to  Jack DuBrul
February 4, 2017 6:19 pm

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
F.ormer Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart

Steve Lohr
Reply to  clipe
February 4, 2017 10:31 pm

She was trying to tell the truth but couldn’t quite articulate it.

dennisambler
Reply to  clipe
February 5, 2017 8:50 am

Lisa P Jackson (then EPA head),20th January 2012:
“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet. It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people.”
Ban Ki Moon, then UN Secretary-General, 14 February 2012:
“Most of the world’s ecosystems are in decline. We are nearing the point of no return on climate change. You all understand the high stakes — for jobs, for social justice, for the Millennium Development Goals, for the health of the planet.”
Gro Harlem Brundtland (the Brundtland Report became Agenda 21) Socialist International 15 -17 September 1992:
“At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course. In an increasingly interdependent world, we must find new ways to live – both within our own countries and on a global level – that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable. What we need is a new social contract.
A new social contract must be based on our overriding principles – freedom, solidarity and justice. To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties. There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies.”
The names change, but the message is always the same.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jack DuBrul
February 5, 2017 5:49 am

Would “Slientist” be a synonym?

SMC
February 4, 2017 4:48 pm

Huh. What a surprise.

February 4, 2017 4:51 pm

Holy crap. I wonder what the “scientists” will say about this. They were so busy denying that Lamar Smith had a right to call a government employee to testify on a paper paid for by the government funding. It turns out, they were wrong.
By all rights, this should end CAGW. Somehow, I doubt it will.
It looks like Roy Spencer’s data may be the most relisable dataset around.

ATheoK
Reply to  lorcanbonda
February 4, 2017 7:03 pm

The trouble is, according to the newspaper article, NOAA expects to release an updated version with the flaws fixed and utilizing satellite data.
It took awhile, but that little blurb explains why UAH suddenly changed their satellite algorithm last year.
What used to be relatively pristine satellite temperature estimates have Karl fudge applied to them.

bit chilly
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 8:12 pm

what is the betting the new and improved version will show even more warming .

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ATheoK
February 5, 2017 1:59 am

It was Mieirs at RSS that suddenly changed his data UPWARDS. Roy’s data remains fundamentally on the same trend.

TA
Reply to  ATheoK
February 5, 2017 7:42 am

Thank you Stephen, for straightening that out.
RSS still shows 1998 as hotter than any subsequent year but 2016, so RSS still has a little credibility. We’ll see what the future brings.

Richard M
Reply to  lorcanbonda
February 4, 2017 8:54 pm

The next data tampering that needs to be investigated is RSS 4.0.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2017 10:49 pm

Richard, is rss government funded? (i thought they were a private entity and could do whatever they wanted)…

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
February 5, 2017 10:31 am

Yes, RSS is government funded (NOAA and NASA).

Roguewave1
Reply to  lorcanbonda
February 4, 2017 9:37 pm

How often have you got someone to abandon their religion by logic?

February 4, 2017 4:54 pm

Bates does not look that old, so bringing him out of retirement should not be that much of a stretch. Someone needs to reform the operation.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 4, 2017 9:23 pm

The photo may not be current.

jazznick1
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 5, 2017 3:38 am

I suspect he may now have a beard and a bullet proof jacket.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 5, 2017 3:37 am

I estimate Dr. Bates is about 60 years of age. B.Sc. in 1976.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/american-geophysical-union-elects-ncdc-scientist-board
Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. He has authored over 45 publications and has been involved in major national and international programs devoted to the study of meteorological science. Bates received his Bachelor of Science degree in meteorology in 1976 at Florida State University. He received his Masters of Science degree in meteorology in 1982 as well as his Doctor of Philosophy in meteorology in 1986 at University of Wisconsin, Madison.

chilemike
February 4, 2017 4:58 pm

Might be time for a subpoena for Mr. Karl to come and have a chat with Congress. I would hope that there are other scientists who have been bullied by these frauds who will come forward.

ATheoK
Reply to  chilemike
February 4, 2017 7:05 pm

Karl needs a chat with the FBI in one of the FBI “interview” rooms.
While the FBI also “interview” Karl’s computers, servers and communications.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 7:40 pm

Forensic computer techs can do a lot these days.

ATheoK
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 7:46 pm

The manner of deposition is irrelevant, but very very useful! 🙂

Roguewave1
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 9:41 pm

I hope Dr. Karl, et.al. are sleeping well tonight.

afonzarelli
Reply to  ATheoK
February 4, 2017 10:52 pm

(yeah, and on very expensive beds)…

AndyG55
Reply to  ATheoK
February 5, 2017 9:58 pm

There were EIGHT writers.
Either they all have back-ups of code and data………… .or
They NEVER examined that code and data.
Think about that. !!!!

Mike Smith
February 4, 2017 4:58 pm

Oops. There must be some very red faces among the senior managers at NOAA this weekend.
With luck, President Trump will be able to use Dr Bates’ evidence to further justify a massive cleanup of the cesspool at NOAA and elsewhere.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 4, 2017 9:44 pm

…I doubt they have the strength of character to do that.

kim
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 5, 2017 2:16 am

I have long thought that there will come a time when we will pity the mass of climate scientists. It will be difficult to separate the deliberate deceivers from the relatively innocent fellow travelers, except in egregious cases, such as this instance.
History will forgive the mass of them, and I’m inclined to support that. No doubt there will be confession, redemption, and improved behaviour. The example, however, of those who resisted the alarmist narrative will forever shame that mass, that 97% of climate scientists who just let the whole mess roll on, fearful of rocking the boat, even in the cause of keeping the boat on course.
It’s all been such a shame, and a forgivable shame, too, by the those who’ve survived the social pathology of alarmism. Those who’ve not survived may be less inclined to forgive, but what do they matter anyway? Anyway? Anyway? They’re no matter, but perhaps something of even greater substance.
================

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 5, 2017 5:40 am

Forrest G, “the more cunning ones will seamlessly morph into scientists.”
Wickedly brilliant!
Kim: “there will come a time when we will pity the mass of climate scientists.”
Perhaps, but tempered, no doubt, by the fact we’ll still be paying for some of these peoples’ pensions as the ‘science’ they developed over the course of their lives crumbles to dust.
I suspect the embarrassment reaches its climax as CAGW becomes a textbook sociological case study in propaganda driven mass hysteria in the era of mass communication, dwarfing, both in terms of scale and the level of official sanction, the panics intrinsic to Y2K, SARS and the alleged Ozone Hole.

asybot
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 5, 2017 11:41 am

@ Kim,”we will pity the mass of climate scientists.”
should read: we will stop the Mass of climate scientists and close the Church.

PaulH
February 4, 2017 4:59 pm

Hopefully these “scientists” will be assigned to duties more suited to their particular skill set. For example, washing chemistry lab glassware or picking up roadside litter.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  PaulH
February 4, 2017 5:45 pm

… also, re-typesetting the past at the ‘Ministry of Truth.’

Macha
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 4, 2017 10:49 pm

Ha. Nice one. ‘Ministry’…so much like the fantasy harry potter novels.. NOAA ministry of magical affairs.

Nigel S
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 5, 2017 1:29 am

Oceania has always been at war with Climate Change.

Roy Hartwell
Reply to  PaulH
February 5, 2017 8:26 am

I’m not sure I’d want them washing MY laboratory glassware…..I was always VERY fussy !!

Steve Fraser
February 4, 2017 5:00 pm

I think the dual failures, the lack of archive and the failure of the computer system, have put NOAA in the vise.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Steve Fraser
February 4, 2017 5:09 pm

And I am delighted that Congressman Smith is in the loop. I wonder how GIStemp, derivative of the NOAA numbers, will be affected.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
February 5, 2017 12:27 am

“I think the dual failures, the lack of archive and the failure of the computer system”
The archive is here.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 5, 2017 4:01 am

“The archive is here”: Great news, Nick! Does that mean that you – or someone else – will be able now to replicate Karl’s pause-busting paper exactly and prove Bates a liar?

Bill Illis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 5, 2017 6:02 am

Well Zeke Hausfather 2017 confirmed Karl’s numbers. He did it exactly backwards however by showing there was no difference in the ships versus the buoys so all was good. Except Karl adjusted the buoys up by 0.12C up because they had less warming than the ships. Some deep logic missing there. Obviously Hausfather 2017 has to be withdrawn now too since it can not be replicated given he must have used Karl’s data (from a crashed computer that put out different numbers every time).
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

emsnews
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 5, 2017 7:42 am

The computer crashed because of a drunk driver. 🙂

kim
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 5, 2017 9:32 am

HeeHee, hotboxed CO2.
=======

G. Karst
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 5, 2017 10:48 am

Nick, we look forward to your reproduction of data set analysis. GK

February 4, 2017 5:01 pm

The warmist response was more like “this is witch hunt just like when a Democrat congressmen subpoenaed all of the records by the leading skeptics.”
Except there is a huge difference between subpoenaing all of the records by people who hold the same opinions and subpoening the records of one government employee which applied to his recently published government funded research.

Joe
February 4, 2017 5:03 pm

The concept of measuring the entire global to fractions of a degree with mercury thermometers is silly on it’s face. They are covering less than 2% of the surface even if their intentions were not fraudulent
The satellite stuff is better but not much
The tidal gauges are the only real measurement of the trend in global temperature.

Windsong
Reply to  Joe
February 4, 2017 7:47 pm

Joe, I do not agree with tidal gauge idea. They are only a coast, no interior data, and a lot of variability with subsidence, etc. Grand Isle, LA, is ~ +9.05mm/yr (multiple reasons), while Valdez, AK, is ~ -8.6mm/yr (mainly rebound). If either location reflects a temp trend up or down, I don’t know how you could separate it from land movement.

Reply to  Joe
February 4, 2017 8:57 pm

For past Australian land T data there is a rounding bias that cannot be proven but can becestimstedvas 0.1 to 0.2 C. There is also a conversion error around year 1975 from deg F to deg C of an estimated 0.2 C that the BOM reports then ignores (complications from a likely global climate shift around 1975).
Add these two identifiable error sources at their high plausible level and you get 0.3 of the 0.9 C that BOM claim was Australian warming over the 20th century. A third of it.
That is a bigger error than the Karlised adjustments.Nothing seems proposed to investigate the BOM temperature error.
Geoff

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
February 5, 2017 8:16 pm

It’s a lot of trouble adjusting temps upward Geoff. One has to expose oneself as a fraud and incompetent as a scientist and really a complete failure as a human being. Now you want them to grow a normal sized human conscience and fix their foul deeds? Methinks Shakespeare would have had a field day with these hypocrites. They make Macbeth look like an innocent!

Arbeegee
February 4, 2017 5:03 pm

Tell me again how there is no such thing as Alternate Facts.

Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 5:03 pm

WAY — TO — GO, JOHN BATES!
And hearty applause also for Anthony Watts, who played no small part in all this….
From 2008

…. Then came a personal tour of the Asheville CRN station by Dr. Bruce Baker. In addition to taking visible light photos, I also took matching IR photos from many angles. Bruce and his team were quite impressed with the IR camera I use, ….
But the big news came with Dr. Baker providing me with a press release (new today) to post here for you all to see. CRN is getting completed and USHCN modernization is starting:
“NOAA today announced it will install the last nine of the 114 stations as part of its new, high-tech climate monitoring network. …
NOAA also is modernizing 1,000 stations in the Historical Climatology Network (HCN), … NOAA’s goal is to have both networks work in tandem to feed consistently accurate, high-quality data to scientists studying climate trends.”
***
What this means: No more adjusted data, the raw data from CRN and from HCN-M is the real data and will be pristine, assuming the network is maintained. No more torturous gyrations of FILNET, SHAP, and TOBS. The downside is that a track record needs to be built up, the older data is also going to be revised with USHCN2 algorithms soon, and I’ll touch on that later.
… perhaps some of the focus the surfacestations.org project brought to illuminating the deplorable condition of the network may have helped a little bit in convincing some legislators that it was time to get serious about allocating funding to complete the CRN and fix the USHCN. A little public embarrassment of the USHCN provided by all of us that have contributed to surfacestations.org may have helped. I’d sure like to think so. …

(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/24/road-trip-update-day-2-at-ncdc-and-press-release/ )
I have no doubt, Anthony, that as to your weather stations project’s influence, you can know so.
And, also, here’s to you, WUWT and Surfacestations volunteers:

I want to thank you, my loyal readers and volunteers, because without your help, the trip and presentation I made would not be possible.

Anthony (Ibid.)
So proud of ALL of you!

asybot
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 5:25 pm

Janice , they never stopped trying to adjust the data! The Watts report was 8 years ago. How old is this Karl et al report? What? 2 years old.?
These guys , with the billions of taxpayer dollars involved should be charged with FRAUD! and misuse of Government property.( computers etc.)!

Reply to  asybot
February 5, 2017 3:50 am

Another of my predictions proves true – this one from 2013::
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/21/salmon-climate-and-accountability/#comment-1743273
On Accountability:
I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago:
I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.
I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.
There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering
Despite congressional attempts to limit the scope of civil RICO, only one major area of law has been removed from the RICO Act. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77 et seq.) eliminated liability for RICO claims based on securities Fraud, unless the defendant has already been criminally convicted of securities fraud. The act thus removed the threat of treble (triple) damages in such cases. Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud. Therefore, it was unnecessary and unfair to expose defendants in securities cases to the threat of treble damages and other extraordinary remedies provided by the RICO Act.
Critics of the RICO Act applaud this congressional action but argue that the same reasoning can and should be applied to other areas of Civil Law. These critics maintain that the act’s broad scope has given plaintiffs an unfair advantage in civil litigation.
One criticism of civil RICO is that no criminal convictions are necessary to win a civil case under the act. The plaintiff need only show, by a Preponderance of Evidence, that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. As a result RICO has been used in all types of civil cases to allege wrongdoing. By contrast, a criminal RICO case must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
In addition, the judge and jury in a criminal RICO case are prohibited from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. No such ban exists, however, in a civil RICO case. Critics contend that it is unfair for a party in a civil RICO case who has concerns about potential criminal liability to be forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in order to mount an effective defense in the civil action. Once testimony is given in the civil case, the party has effectively waived the privilege against Self-Incrimination, and the testimony may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Critics contend that the RICO Act should be amended to stay (delay) a civil RICO proceeding until a criminal RICO proceeding has been concluded.
The critics of civil RICO also believe that its use has given plaintiffs an unfair tool that often serves to coerce a party to settle out of fear of a treble damages award. These critics believe that no civil RICO action should be allowed unless the party has been convicted under criminal RICO.
[end of excerpt]
I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were utterly incapable of providing significant or economic new energy to the electric power grid.
Your thoughts?
Regards, Allan
___________________________________________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/21/salmon-climate-and-accountability/#comment-1743671
Phil – please see my post of September 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I suggest that someone is going to sue these warmist fraudsters in the USA, probably using the civil RICO statutes.
Watch for it…
Best, Allan

Reply to  asybot
February 5, 2017 4:23 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/climate-alarmists-demand-obama-use-the-rico-act-to-silence-critics/#comment-2031320
David and Jean – you appear to misunderstand.
I was and still am proposing a Civil RICO lawsuit against the global warming alarmists, not the skeptics.
The Climategate emails, the warmists’ falsifying of climate science, climate models and now even climate data are damning evidence of deliberate falsehoods, deceit and fraud.
These are not incidents of accidental and random error – the falsehoods are too consistent, there are far too many of them, there is ample evidence of conspiracy, and nobody who earns a PhD can be that imbecilic for that long without deliberate and conscious effort.
Civil RICO is a cause of action unique to the USA that is well-suited to these warmist fraudsters.
Regards, Allan

MRW
Reply to  asybot
February 7, 2017 3:29 am

Allan,

Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud.

Complete BS in that quote, Allan. The Bush and Obama admin DOJ refused to prosecute any elite banker for mortgage loan origination fraud and mortgage securites fraud. [Hell, former Chairman & CEO of Goldman sachs, Governor of NJ and US Senator Jon Corzine purloined $1.2 billion of his clients’ money at M.F. Global without their permission in a stock gamble, stole it, and lost it, and what happened to him? Zip. Zero.
NYC Prez of the NY Federal Reserve Geithner claimed during his Obama admin Sec Treasury hearings that he didn’t have to regulate mortgage banks (it’s in the NY Fed charter; mortgage banks do NOT come under federal bank charter rules, the NY Fed regulates them) even though the FBI testified in Sept 2004 in open testimony before Congress that there was an “epidemic of mortgage fraud” in the country, fully 90% of all loans were fraudulent.
This scam pulled in the mid-90s to spare themselves a RICO charge helped to create the Sept 2008 financial crisis. The white-collar crime term for it is “control fraud.” Fraud by those in control.
And these Wall Street crooks pulled off this scam on Congress with the help of Greenspan while Clinton was distracted with his girlie trials.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 7:10 pm

Yes, Sybot, I realize that (thank you for reminding me, in case I had forgotten). In my view, Anthony’s fine work (and the volunteers helping him) shone such a bright light on the flawed temperature data that Karl’s Science Thugs got very nervous resulting in their hurriedly getting out their paste and tape and caulk and stuff to try to keep their crumbling junk science sculpture from looking as AWFUL it really was.
That haste did them in.
That and, a hero of a truth teller.

asybot
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 5, 2017 11:57 am

Absolutely no doubt about that.
At first, when all this started with Al Gore, I leaned the warmist’s way but after a friend pointed out this web site years ago and I started following the science I( as many others have since finding it) have become a sceptic as well.
This is a very good day for Anthony and we all do congratulate him. (I also wonder if Mark Steyn is having a fun day!)

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 5, 2017 8:51 pm

I am happy to second that emotion .While I struggle with some of the statistical math here,my physics is pretty solid and I have learned a great deal from this site and have developed a tremendous respect for Anthony as well as the many intelligent,informed and,most importantly,principled people who contribute on here. In the face of a massive deceit being perpetrated by powerful people,Anthony’s site a a few other’s provide the light of honest questioning to a dark and shameful corner of human affairs. I have no wish to make Warmist martyrs out of the many ambitious liars and fraudsters such as Mann, the Hockey team and others now including Karl as many long suspected, but I do believe that formal legal sanctions and complete professional discreditation are warranted and necessary as a warning to future scientists to hang on tightly to the ethical standards. I’m afraid a few metaphorical public hangings are required.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 9:27 pm

Speaking of Watts, his paper ought to be another bombshell when it’s published.

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 5, 2017 7:04 am

As long as the equipment is maintained and accurately calibrated at consistent intervals, the data should be reliable, those stations out of calibration should be noted and excluded. But with so many stations and the state of ethics in science, I can see the changes happening. Like the generations of satellites that present upward notches as each new satellite came on line.
And what about the old station thermometers that were found to be non-linear and recorded higher at higher temperatures?
I’ll admit at the state of climate science in the government, I’m skeptical.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Robert
February 5, 2017 9:19 pm

For example, I used to go to the SnoTel Narrative page to get current compilations of precipitation values reported daily by our network of SnoTel stations but those “scientists” in charge of that must have a bad case of butt-hurt because it’s been unavailable for a week now.
It reminds me of when Obama’s administration closed down national parks and historic sites in retribution for Republican-led budget cuts–these elitist bozos are nasty people who think they have ownership when it’s the taxpayers who are footing their salaries!
They all need to be flushed from the swamp, with the first big step the repudiation of Hillary–worst candidate to ever be nominated.

Roger Knights
February 4, 2017 5:04 pm

CAUSEBUSTER!

Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 5:05 pm

The problem is we are still playing brontosaurs here. The story will be buried. Quickly. President Trump or his staff needs to be alerted to this.
There is so much on their plate that something like this can slip through the cracks. Next there is a time and place, this may be something best used in a dramatic setting, or disagreement, when the effects will have the most devastating impact.
(read, hearings or court)
michael

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 5:12 pm

Fear not, O Michael the Vigilant! 🙂
(from above David Rose article excerpts)

… Last night {Texas Republican Lamar Smith, US House of Representatives Science Committee chairman} thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. …

This will not go unnoticed by those in power. Heh, heh, HEH! 🙂

ATheoK
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 7:35 pm

Janice:
Lamar Smith let the fact be known, that Smith himself was in contact with NOAA whistleblowers. Hopefully, there is a whistleblower who saved all relevant communications and documents.

asybot
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 5, 2017 11:59 am

Next? IRS, EPA. We need more whistle blowers.

asybot
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 5:29 pm

COURT ! No question about it, misleading Congress is just one of them. Then the misuse of computers, wilfully destroying data ( that belongs to the taxpayers) and the list is probably a lot longer, I am not a lawyer. But in my view these guys belong behind bars and their pensions should be revoked!

jim heath
February 4, 2017 5:07 pm

These climate papers should all begin with “once upon a time”

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  jim heath
February 4, 2017 5:13 pm

On a planet far far away,,,,,
mike

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 5:30 pm

“And the wicked data twister trolls were locked up in the giant’s dungeon and the little hobbits lived happily every after.
The End.”
🙂

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 6:36 pm

Janice Moore February 4, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Janice,
not my caverns please I hate gristle

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 7:18 pm

Correction to Janice’s story ending:
“I shall cast those data twister trolls into Michael’s Caverns,” cried the knight.
“No!” a deep voice thundered from the darkness at their feet, “not my caverns please, I hate gristle!”
“To the dungeons with them, then!”
“And…
The End.”
#(:))

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 7:37 pm

Janice Moore February 4, 2017 at 7:18 pm
smile
michael

Eric Simpson
February 4, 2017 5:07 pm

Global Satellites: 2016 0.02°C Warmer than 1998: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
Over the last two decades there’s been zero or near zero warming. The climate models, the basis for all climate alarm, show temperatures skyrocketing. A joke:comment image
We we’re supposed to be boiling and flooded by now. But everything is as serene and normal and unchanged as ever:

“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Ecojournalist

JohnKnight
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 4, 2017 7:18 pm

Over 95% of Climate Models Agree . . ?
Climate Siants protocols allow for some
homogenization; ‘surface’ 97.8 & ‘lower troposphere’ 95.6 >< 96.4
and some smoothing; 96.~5
And spacial adjusting (surface over lower troposphere) ; 97% (Congratulations)
(Trust me, no one will be the wiser . . but delete this just in case)

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 6, 2017 11:52 am

You’re right, the observations must be wrong. And the models are below the calculated math, when co2 levels were lower.
Delta Ts = ( -288/4) (-4/240) = 1.2 K.
So I saw the graphs, are they really adjusting the temperature down ? I mean that’s without any positive feedback. Scary isn’t it ?

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 6, 2017 3:25 pm

You’ve got the UAH lower troposphere wrong and thereby you weaken the impact of real global temperature change. UAH December 2016 temperature chart shows cooling, not the warming you do from 2002 on. This cooling lasted from 2002 to 2012. Beyond that point the temperature curve turns up again in preparation for the upcoming El Nino as I pointed out in my comment.

TA
February 4, 2017 5:08 pm

Do Whistle Blowers get a cut of the savings? In some cases, when someone blows the whistle on government waste, the whistle blower gets paid a percentage of whatever taxpayer money his whistle blowing might have saved the taxpayers.
If I figured correctly, Dr. Bates ought to be in line for about an $8 billion payment per year for telling the truth. This Climate Change deception is supposed to cost taxpayers $80 billion per year, according to the article, so $8 billion is ten percent. 🙂 Good work, Dr. Bates.
The word is there are a lot of NOAA/NASA employess blowing the whistle. Dr. Bates may be just the first of many.

February 4, 2017 5:12 pm

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”
Let us see that evidence then.
In Gods we believe, everybody else has to bring data.

markl
Reply to  Science or Fiction
February 4, 2017 5:22 pm

Didn’t Karl admit it? “He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.” Someone pleads guilty and you want to mount a defense?

Reply to  Science or Fiction
February 4, 2017 6:39 pm

John Bates has a guest post at Judith Curry’s climate etc. https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

Reply to  Tom Harley
February 5, 2017 1:06 am

Thanks for that link to that article by John Bates. That is exactly what I was looking for.
An article like that is completely different from “the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday “.
I look forward to the day mainstream media starts to identify and link to articles.

Reply to  Tom Harley
February 5, 2017 4:19 am

Thank you Tom Harley for the Dr. John Bates guest post at
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
This quote is of particular interest:
“Gradually, in the months after K15 [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] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
*********************

Reply to  Tom Harley
February 5, 2017 4:50 am

Comment: I would be interested in Dr. Bates views regarding what drives what.
Excerpts below are from Veizer (GAC 2005). Dr. Bates also works on the global water and energy cycle.
As I proved in January 2008 (MacRae, icecap.us), dCO2/dt varies with temperature and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags global temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. Quelle surprise!
Best, Allan
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
“Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. His most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/#comment-982270
Excerpts from Veizer (GAC 2005):
“Pages 14-15: The postulated causation sequence is therefore: brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux + solar wind => muted CRF => less low-level clouds => lower albedo => warmer climate.
Pages 21-22: The hydrologic cycle, in turn, provides us with our climate, including its temperature component. On land, sunlight, temperature, and concomitant availability of water are the dominant controls of biological activity and thus of the rate of photosynthesis and respiration. In the oceans, the rise in temperature results in release of CO2 into air. These two processes together increase the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. If only short time scales are considered, such a sequence of events would be essentially opposite to that of the IPCC scenario, which drives the models from the bottom up, by assuming that CO2 is the principal climate driver and that variations in celestial input are of subordinate or negligible impact….
… The atmosphere today contains ~ 730 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) as CO2 (Fig. 19). Gross primary productivity (GPP) on land, and the complementary respiration flux of opposite sign, each account annually for ~ 120 Pg. The air/sea exchange flux, in part biologically mediated, accounts for an additional ~90 Pg per year. Biological processes are therefore clearly the most important controls of atmospheric CO2 levels, with an equivalent of the entire atmospheric CO2 budget absorbed and released by the biosphere every few years. The terrestrial biosphere thus appears to have been the dominant interactive reservoir, at least on the annual to decadal time scales, with oceans likely taking over on centennial to millennial time scales.”

Phil R
Reply to  Science or Fiction
February 4, 2017 9:12 pm

Science or Fiction,
Erm… I thing the irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data is that the misleading, ‘unverified’ data has also gone missing.

Reply to  Phil R
February 5, 2017 12:51 am

Scientific papers should be traceable in every step to the measured data.
In my profession I would be put behind bars if I behaved like Karl et co.
Isn´t there a law prohibiting government employees from doing these kind of things.

drednicolson
Reply to  Phil R
February 5, 2017 9:10 am

Just because there’s a law, doesn’t mean it will be obeyed. Or that the people who are supposed to enforce it, will do so.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
February 5, 2017 4:14 am

In this case, the data you request is, in fact Karl’s own admission.

Reply to  davideisenstadt
February 5, 2017 6:37 am

What I request is the irrefutable evidence that was shown to The Mail on Sunday.

Steve Case
February 4, 2017 5:16 pm

Anyone who’s been following this stuff, and has a lukewarm IQ, knows that Karl’s so-called “Pause Buster” paper is bullshit.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 4, 2017 9:23 pm

And the Science Magazine editorial staff that worked the review and approval process should all be fired and new management hired.

M Courtney
Reply to  Steve Case
February 5, 2017 1:23 am

Absolutely. But when it was first published I pointed out the flaws BTL on the Guardian.
Most responses were, “We have to trust the experts”.
Some people just yearn for a Strongman to follow. Even in intellectual pursuits.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  M Courtney
February 5, 2017 4:57 am

Especially if they agree with him.
Those experts who say there is nothing to worry about from CO2 at 400 ppm, indeed that it’s a good thing, wouldn’t find the same degree of deference at the Guardian.

tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 5:18 pm

Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.
Here is the guts of the story from the Daily Mail: “A final, approved version has still not been issued.”
That’s it. That’s what this is all about. SMFH.
If the “final, approved version” differed substantially, then and only then there might be a news-worthy story. It won’t, but that doesn’t matter to alt-truthers like Rose.

Janice Moore
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 5:41 pm

Since you obviously don’t get it, McLd., here’s the David Rose for Those in a Hurry version:

Now,

more than two years after

the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors. …
‘… the computer used to process the software ha{s} suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means

the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

That is, in a nutshell (leaving out a lot of significant detail to avoid confusing you), what this is all about.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 5:44 pm

Plus Karl’s violation of NOAA’s internal procedures.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 5:52 pm

Thank you, Mr. Knights — very good.
ADDITION to above (hoo, boy, sure hope ol’ McL. can handle this much information):

Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

(above David Rose article excerpt)
(btw: re: your recent clever coining of “agnorant” (for arrogant and ignorant at the same time) — very nice 🙂 )

Hivemind
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 7:35 pm

“..can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”
In other words, NOAA isn’t practicing real science.

Steve Case
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 5, 2017 5:20 am

Thank you for “Climate Fraud for Dummies” run-down. I appreciate it.

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 6, 2017 2:50 pm

You don’t need to replicate that fake Pausebuster to show that it is false. Proof is in my comment of February 4th at 9:04 pm. The only data set needed is UAH temperature curve for December 2016.

catweazle666
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 5:53 pm

THIS isn’t “Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.” Mcleod, you disingenuous little man.
This is straighrt from the horse’s mouth.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Read it and weep, it’s all up for you frauds.

catweazle666
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 5:56 pm

THIS isn’t “Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.” Mcleod.
This is straight from the horse’s mouth.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Read it and weep.

Nigel S
Reply to  catweazle666
February 5, 2017 1:43 am

If you need cheering up after that read this, Dr Curry’s amicus brief in MM’s case against Mark Steyn.
‘Dr. Mann has transgressed scientific norms and offended First Amendment principles by bringing a defamation claim against Appellants for their pointed criticism of his scientific methodology. Dr. Mann’s suit is unsupportable both because of his behavior toward his critics, particularly amicus curiae Dr. Curry, which demonstrates that the debate over climate science is often contentious and because Dr. Mann engages in the debate often to silence rather than to illuminate. The Court ought not be party to stifling debate.’
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/2017.01.25%20Br.%20of%20Amicus%20Dr.%20Judith%20A.%20Curry%20Nos.%2014-cv-101%2014-cv-126%20%28D.C.%29.pdf

Reply to  catweazle666
February 5, 2017 8:18 am

Nigel, the breif is on behalf of CEI/NR, requesting an en banc rehearing of the erroneously denied appeal of the trial judge’s failure to applynyhe DC AntiSLAPP. Steyn severed and wants to go to trial. That is pending resolution of this.

Athlete
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 6:17 pm

Apparently you’re comfortable with “settled science” based on “possible artifacts”. You can’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 6:27 pm

If an ENTIRE DATABASE calls BullS**t, maybe, just maybe, it’s about blatant manipulation… Is that “alt-truthy” enough for you to realize your argument is on the ground and spitting teeth?

clipe
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 6:30 pm

Ah! you learned a new phrase…alt-truther. Do you wear a pant-suit by any chance?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 7:02 pm

tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 5:18 pm
” “A final, approved version has still not been issued.””
You need to re- think. NOAA is not allowed to publish a unapproved version
The data is lost there can be no approved version. Are you naturally stupid or do you take a pill in the morning.
Sorry if this is bad manners but please turn on brain before operating mouth.
You are intelligent, start looking for a different and useful way to use that intelligence. Rhe world has to many real problems that need to be addressed, why do you waste your endeavor on a falsehood?
michael

afonzarelli
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2017 11:09 pm

Looks like tony’s head is in the (mc)clouds…

AndyG55
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 5, 2017 10:02 pm

I like to call my “McClod”, because a clod of dirt has about the same intelligence.
Its a good name for him.

Raven
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 7:10 pm

Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.

By “bounce around the echo-chambers”, do you mean like Cook et al 2013 . . the 97% paper?
If anyone can replicate the Cook paper or the Karl paper I expect everyone would be mightily impressed.

lapogus
Reply to  Raven
February 5, 2017 5:33 am

Let’s not forget Steig’s paper which created a fake warming trend across Antarctica, and Nature’s brazen promotion of this prior to Copenhagen in 2009. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html

bit chilly
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 8:29 pm

so why was the original version submitted ? particularly with the problems highlighted with software and hardware that resulted in a computer “breaking”.
your last line is very telling ,surmising there will be no difference without YOU having any evidence.however, in line with typical climate “science” i do expect the new version to show more warming, it has to ,to keep the tax payer sucking leech scam going.

M Courtney
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 5, 2017 1:32 am

But this isn’t the first time. Remember Climategate.
That exposed fabricated results that were rushed out before a Climate conference too.
How often do you need to be deceived?

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 5, 2017 6:07 am

What matters is that the pre-Paris version differs so markedly from reality.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 5, 2017 9:06 pm

Congratulations Tony!You are the equal of Karl in complete lack of personal integrity. He is a failed scientist ,a political hack and a sellout opportunist. Sleep well, your horrible anti-humanist cause is drowning
in it’s own diseased shit!

Janice Moore
February 4, 2017 5:22 pm

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair … thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. …

(above article by David Rose)
Indeed, it does.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. …
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, … I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this – … I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it. …
Cheers, Peck

(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ )

Roger Knights
February 4, 2017 5:23 pm

Let the hearings begin. And the congressionally mandated debates and independent analyses.

markl
February 4, 2017 5:23 pm

And so it begins………..

Editor
February 4, 2017 5:24 pm

I predict that we will see more and more of this type of whistle-blowing — in CliScii, coral reef studies, social sciences, etc — as the terrible pressure to :”conform or else” is seen to have evaporated with the change in government viewpoints.
Those not familiar with the issue can read mine essay touching on it at Journalistic Failure: Revkin on Watts/Peterson — June 14, 2015.
Anthony Watts has been totally vindicated in this matter. ClimateGate Two — let’s see if the floodgates open now that Bates has spoken up.

Editor
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 4, 2017 5:26 pm

gads! — my essay….
For a more thorough discussion of the Karl/Peterson paper itself, see here.

Nigel S
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 5, 2017 1:53 am

The alpha version of spellcheck forsooth!

tony mcleod
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 4, 2017 5:35 pm

“floodgates”, “world leaders duped”, “bombshell”. Lol. Must be a bit of a slow news day. You guys are getting desperate.
Here is some real news:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=41368;image

Janice Moore
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 5:47 pm

Sure, McL., whatever. I’ll take your “Look! A squirrel!” and raise you one “Look! A shipwreck!”comment image

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 4, 2017 6:10 pm