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

Advertisements

927 thoughts on “BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

      • “You want to depose me, counsel for Karl, et al? Make — my — day.”

        Science Realist Hero: John J. Bates

        (much more edifying to look at than the above (in article) two scoundrels)

      • 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)

      • 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….

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

      • 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 below

        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:

        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):

        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:

        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.

      • 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.

      • @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.

      • 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?

      • Bindi, NASA got caught out shifting the baseline goalposts a few years back. Of course you misunderstood and denied that stuff up as well. Your knowledge and contribution is at best nil.

      • 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!

      • 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…

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

        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:

        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.

      • “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.

      • @ 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?

      • @ 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.

      • On the contrary John, there was no justification for the politically motivated data torture which was the very essence of the Karl paper, or the shifting of the anomaly goalposts which the graph exposes clearly.

        Try science. You’ll like it!

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

      • John, that about sums it up. You believe who you want to believe but make no claim to have any understanding of scientific principles at all. Good luck with agreeing with trolls.

      • John@EF

        Sorry John, I thoroughly misunderstood your reply :-(
        Please simply ignore what I wrote. Bare nonsense!

      • 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…

      • 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.

      • 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:

        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:

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        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…

      • 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” >

      • 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 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.

      • 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

        2. CONUS 1979-2016

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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]

      • 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).

      • Tony your misdirection gets you nowhere. The fact remains that Karl’s sole purpose was to adjust the pause out of existence by fair means or foul. Such motivated fudging of figures is scientific misconduct. His foul means is just the icing on the cake.

      • 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 :-)

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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]

    • “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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • “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.

      • 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..

      • 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.

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

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • 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 ?

      • 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.

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

      • 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. !!!!

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

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

      Drain The Swamp!

    • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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

    • 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.)

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

  2. 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!

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

      PMK

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

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

    • 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.

  3. 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/

    • 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

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

    • 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

      • ““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. :)

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

      • 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).

      • 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?

      • “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

      • 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.

        _

      • 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”.

    • “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

      • 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.

  4. 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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.

  5. As I recall there were plenty of people who pointed out flaws in the Karl paper but the usual suspects denied that they were flaws. Now they face a clean up operation. Wasn’t the alarmist response along the lines of nothing to see here but no you cannot see our emails because that would impede science.

    All it will take now is for a few more whistle blowers inside institutions like NASA and the séance will be scuttled, or at least irretrievably on that path.

    • 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.

    • All it will take is for the POTUS to ask the FBI to go borrow all NOAA computers and servers. No warrant is needed to take computers that are already property of the government.

  6. 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.

    • 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    • It will all depend on whether they decide to tough it out or realise that the game is up. That in turn will depend on whether the senior managers even realise that what was done was anti-science and just plain wrong.

      Another dimension is that Karl didn’t write the paper or adjust the numbers himself. With luck some of the underlings who actually did the work will come forward.

      Now is a really good time for alarmists to jump ship. The more cunning ones will seamlessly morph into scientists.

      • 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.
        ================

      • 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.

  9. 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.

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

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

      • “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?

      • 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

  11. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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!

  12. 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!

    • 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.)!

      • 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
        ___________________________________________________

        https://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

      • https://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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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!)

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  13. 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

    • 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! :)

    • 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!

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

        The End.”

        :)

      • 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.”

        #(:))

  14. 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:

    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

    • 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)

    • 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 ?

    • 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.

  15. 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.

  16. “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.

    • 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?

    • Agreed SoF. It is important to separate the words of the journalist from the words of the scientist. The last two lines of the excerpt give a hint as to where Karl’s problem is when he “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.’” and “He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’”.

      Usually such early confessions from public officials are an attempt to provide plausible denyal. On the other hand Karl may realise that there is no point defending what he did.

      • 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.

      • 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.”

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

      • 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.”

        https://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.”

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

  18. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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 :) )

      • “..can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

        In other words, NOAA isn’t practicing real science.

      • 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

      • 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.

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

    • 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?

    • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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!

  19. 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/ )

  20. 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.

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

      • Typical, Janet. Your so invested in your alternative “facts” you can’t tell the difference between a squirrel and an Arctic sea-ice death spiral. Lets chat about it in September.

      • PAMELA!!

        When will it be?? (if I’ve guessed correctly)

        Oh, boy, Pamela — I’m SO GLAD you wrote here. DO write just a bit more — even if cryptically…

        HAPPY, SO HAPPY, for you (hoping I guessed right, I mean!)!!

        Yaaaaayyyyy! :)

        Sure wish I could be there. Hm. Maybe….. — is it after the passes are clear of snow/ice?

      • Pamela Gray February 4, 2017 at 7:21 pm

        best hopes and wishes

        but remember, none over us are the people of the past. Wear armor.

        michael

      • Not who you think. This is a wonderful person who has always been my shoulder to lean on for 12 years and he sometimes leaned on my shoulders But we both were at different places till now. A decent family man raising adopted grandkids. Just like my grandparents did with me. Needed a shoulder to lean on recently and it turned out we were finally on the same page. Who knew?

      • Oh, Pamela — HOW COOL. After twelve years (!) your paths have finally come together (physically, I mean, not just words on screen/phone). Raising his grandchildren — GOTTA be a fine man (and I trust your judgment on that issue too, of course!) I’ll be praying for the best for you, two!! Very happy for you. PLEASE KEEP ME (US) POSTED!

        Janice SMILING!

        #(:))

        (I LOVE hearing of such things — God really does have some pretty amazing grace for each one of us, pretty amazing…)

      • arctic sea ice death spiral. a phrase one would associate with children, not a so called member of a professional field . mr mcleod you need to get a grip on reality.

      • “tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm”

        Your friend Griff has made the same claim. I bet him and now I bet you a donation of $50 to WUWT that you and Griff will be wrong in September. That’s US$100 for me to lose.Put your money where you alarm is.

      • Tony, when are you going to accept the reality of the AMO and its effects on the Arctic. Your denial of real science is getting tedious.

      • Mike ‘alt truth’ Morlock says:
        “Here is some real news: https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/russian-icebreakers-stuck-in-the-arctic-global-warming/

        Another total beat-up, reverberating around the blogosphere because it hinted at more ice. Bunkum of the first water Mike but you and your fellow alt-truth travelers lapped it up.

        Eric ‘Clickbait’ Worrall says:
        “this crossing hasn’t been attempted since soviet times – perhaps the risk of getting stuck in the ice is too high for this route to be a regular event.”

        The reality is so different. The reason they undertook the voyage is that the ice is so thin and fragile.
        From the article: “The ease of the sailing is seen as a sign that climate warming in the Arctic can open up shopping lanes even in midwinter.”
        Captain: “very optimistic about them getting through the ice within a week’s time”.

        Nothing to see, move along becomes:
        Ice-breaker scandal, ships frozen in place until June, another killer blow to climate alarmists.

      • roflmao.. McClod, you are grabbing from the bottom the swamp there.

        Seems that you DENY the science that shows the first 3/4 of the Holocene had much less sea ice.

        Seems that you DENY the fact that the late 1970s was a peak in Arctic sea ice up there with near the end of the LIA.

        Seems you DENY the existence of the AMO.

        It seems that you are a CLIMATE CHANGE DÉÑÌÊR.

      • Richard M February 4, 2017 at 9:09 pm
        Tony, when are you going to accept the reality of the AMO and its effects on the Arctic. Your denial of real science is getting tedious.

        Richard, when are you going to realize the AMO is just a poorly understood, weakly defined signal and that there is bugger-all evidence it has any affect on the Arctic.

        Watching all you guys clutching at any straw in the vain hope that one day the graphs will not ALL be trending upwards – that is becoming tedious.

      • “tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 9:48 pm”

        Which is exactly what you are doing. I think you are from Queensland, now that explains a few things.

      • When faced with the reality of the AMO driving Arctic temperatures all we get from Tony is denial. The logic is pretty easy. Why is the Arctic warming and not the Antarctic? There is no AMO in the SH. It is also well know that water melts ice faster than air. We even have evidence of cyclic ice loss during the LIA.

        Add to that the almost perfect correlation between the ice loss and the AMO and this is not hard to understand unless you are living in denial. Tony is becoming a laughing stock.

      • By September, I expect Arctic sea ice will be doing just fine, and Ol’ Tony will push his impending death-spiral forward another year.

      • tony mcclod
        riddle me this
        what is the difference between a squirrel and an Arctic sea-ice death spiral?

      • tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 9:35 pm

        tony there is no such thing as “alt facts”
        just facts.
        1 ice
        2 two icebreaker frozen in.

        the rest is just spin. self serving opinion on your part.
        no science on your part
        but it is funny to see you squirm, you talk like a corrupt politician.

        michael

      • Yet more evidence that mcLod has no idea what data is.
        Whatever today’s data is proves that we are all going to die. Unless the data isn’t going his way, then it’s just weather, like it was for all of last year.

      • mccleod, upstream, said..

        ”You guys are getting desperate.”

        And..

        “Your denial of real science is getting tedious.”

        And..

        “Watching all you guys clutching at any straw in the vain hope that one day the graphs will not ALL be trending upwards” […]

        The Earth was once a glowing hot ball of magma. 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was at 8000ppm. 53 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was a swamp. In the greater view, it is obvious that the Earth is cooling, and that high levels of CO2 did nothing to prevent that cooling.

        The Catastrophic Man-Made Glow Bull Warming due to the release of (much-needed) CO2 meme is dead. Move on. Find another ox to gore.

  21. NOAA denizens like Karl and Peterson show us that government science is political by definition. Karl is a political operative, as is Peterson, Schmidt, and Hansen. The deserve to be fired and their pensions revoked. Their cheating is on the level of national crimes, and should be treated as such.

  22. Does NOAA have an internal “inspector general”? If so, why didn’t he act? If not, it needs one. Anyway, a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into the agency. Ditto for the EPA, since Dr. Carlin has made similar charges to those of Dr. Bates.

    • Roger,

      NOAA, USGS, NASA, EPA, NPS and the Department of the Interior in
      general have ALL been riding on the Climate frenzy bus the past decade.
      They’ve woven a support net that includes major academic institutions,
      NGOs and international agencies.

      Long ago some of us noted in comments here and at Climate Audit that
      a number of these American researches and Scientists needed to be
      hit with subpoenas for their federally funded data, depositions for their
      choices of methodology, and public under-oath questioning and testimony
      in front of a bi-partisan Congressional committee.

      A lot of the academic “scientists” doing federally funded work have tried to
      hide behind “academic freedom” arguments to protect their data from
      public scrutiny. Some claim their work has “proprietary” properties.

      Inspector Generals can’t really go beyond their own agency’s or department’s
      parameters. That limitation leads us to…

      CONGRESS !

    • Generally, the inspector general system during the Obama administration was castrated and completely ineffective. Inspectors general are appointment by the president or the cabinet secretary depending on the agency and are supposed to keep everyone honest despite the political winds. Something like 40% of the positions weren’t even filled during the Obama years, and the ones that were filled acted more like Soviet political officers than inspectors general.

      I am waiting to see if the Trump administration will correct this and give the inspectors general the teeth to really do their mission. If they don’t, then the president isn’t really serious about draining the swamp.

  23. Among the sober-minded there’s little doubt that the climate science cart is being pulled by the political horse. Fortunately, Donald Trump’s team will work to MSGA.

  24. It’s open season now on liberal hogs that have been eating out of the government trough for much too long. If the gentleman is treated honorably as he should, then we will see more people coming forward. Yay!

  25. “Left, blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours. Right, the reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures”

    Left

    Right

    • Thanks, Clipe.

      I did not understand this bit in the DM article. Does this imply that the green temperature plot was deliberately truncated to cover the cooling? But the dates don’t appear to match. And what are the datasets being used?

      This bit could have more explanation.

      R

  26. Different values every time it runs is a very bad sign – it either means the code is using “uninitialised variables, which start with random numbers, or that the code is somehow picking up part of its product as an input.

    Either way, these defects effectively turn the code into a random number generator.

  27. Who will be Trump’s science advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology)? That can be good for thought.

    I know there is some discussion of some computer science kind of person, but . . .

    How about Curry or Lindzen?

  28. “The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed,”

    Problem. They never argued this.
    2nd problem. Their treatment of the SST has been independently verified using Satelllite data, Argo Data,
    and Buoy Data.

    3rd problem.. GHCN is a red herring in all of this as is Pha

    • Jan 4th 2017. Scientific American
      Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus in global warming – the contention that global surface temperatures have stopped….

    • Mosh writes, “Problem. They never argued this.”

      Huh?

      Have you been drinking too much this Saturday night Mosh?

      • The cropped screen shot (above) is the final 2 paragraphs of the Karl, et al, Science, 2015 “PauseBuster” paper under discussion.

      • It’s a typical Mosher fallacy distraction, where he dices up some unknown meaning for a word in play.
        Typical straw man or “red herring” distraction fallacy.

        Then, Mosher will follow up replies by further distracting any arguments put forward.

        Which reminds me of taking children to birthday parties at Chuck-E-Cheese, where they play the “whack a mole” game and others.

      • Nick,
        Uh your desparation in trying to defend the undefensible Karl PauseBuster paper is showing.

        “… it is virtually impossible to replicate the results in K15.”

        Give it up Nick. It’s collapsing before your eyes.

      • Oh boy, ATheoK, I just put this up @ the Bish’s before I saw your comment. There is something distinctly clownish, evil clownish if you will, about all this:

        Super Abund Karls
        Could be Chuckie, Chees, or Charles;
        Pay now for the quarrels.
        ==========

      • In Germany, especially with us, the drink is called Moschd. And is a very high-percentage mixed drink of apples and pears. There is a direct comparison to Karls Pause buster datas. He compared apples with pears and took the rotten. Bad Moschd.

      • LLets take up that screen shot. He is using the super El Nino of 1998 to calculate global temperature. This is impermissible. ENSO is comprised of pairs of El Ninos and La Ninas which is why computer smoothing works to clear the background. It is fairly certain that they originate from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, but this I cannot say of the super El Nino. It is twice as high as the five El Nino peaks belonging to ENSO in the eighties and nineties. Its peak is also narrower and it is not accompanied by a La Nina. It came and departed at the end of the nineties but left behind a warm batch of water that raised the temperature at the beginning of the 21st century by 0.4 degrees Celsius over the eighties and the nineties. This created a number of “warmest ever” temperature claims. Hansen, for example, noted that nine out of ten warmest temperatures in the world all belonged to the first decade of the twenty-first century. To him that proved it was all caused by the greenhouse effect which is impossible because the elevation took only three years to complete. As soon as this warm patch wwas in place it started to cool because it had no energy source. From 2002 to 2012 there w2as an steady cooling that lowered global temperature by a tenth of a degree Celsius in only ten years. Beyond 2012 the warming curve turns up again in preparation for the El Nino of 2015/2016 that was on the works. That cooling amounts to one degree Celsius per century, higher than the observed warming of an entire twentieth century that had just concluded. Warmists are dreaming of a return of warming after the current El Nino is finished but what we expect to get is a continuation of cooling interrupted by the El Nino. You can judge where it will end up by extending the straight line between 2002 and 2012 beyond the last El Nino. The bottom limit to this cooling will be original low level temperature that existed in the eighties and nineties before the IPCC got started with their fake warming there. Arno Arrak

    • Steven Mosher February 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm

      “Their treatment of the SST has been independently verified using Satelllite data, Argo Data,
      and Buoy Data.”

      Then why write the paper Etc

      oh do answer.

      michael

      remember “cannot be reproduced.”
      I hear ice cream truck Co. are hiring.

      michael

      • Michael, it takes a basic understanding of physics to run an ice cream truck…you know basic stuff like temperature? Otherwise the stuff melts. I wouldn’t let one of these Warmist Scientists near my ice cream truck!

      • “charles nelson February 4, 2017 at 9:47 pm”

        They can’t like keep the product cool, interface with customers and play jingles all at the same time. That can’t be modeled, too many variables. The only constant is money.

    • It would be lovely to see emails between BEST (a non-profit, far-left, AGW support organisation) and NOAA and CRU. :-)

      • Well, apparently Muller’s daughter has snapped to the fact that the climate hyperbole was the problem. There are some people’s daughters whose papers I may have to start reading again.
        =============

    • Mosh writes:

      2nd problem. Their treatment of the SST has been independently verified using Satelllite data, Argo Data,
      and Buoy Data.

      Is this before or after the Buoy Data was adjusted upward to match the “more respected” data from shipping’s bucket and engine intake data?

      In my reading of Karl et al, that was one of the biggest red flags in the paper. While it may have been expedient to adjust a single dataset instead of what are probably several data sets from shipping interests, it meant complications in dealing with buoy data for years to come, to say nothing about changes in ratios of bucket/intake data vs buoy data.

  29. However, this — if verified — together with ‘ClimateGate’ e-mails, really does irredemably expose the egregious scams to which we tax-payers, World-wide, have been exposed by the Politico-Scientific charlatans for their nefarious and self-serving purposes.
    This has the makings of a the *ultimate* “Tipping-Point” … a complete Crisis in Scientific Credibility, beyond which all funding from the public purse should STOP DEAD AS OF THIS INSTANT. President Tump … lead the way!
    Stops until we start again afresh, with reinstating proper scientific-research-establishments TARGETED WITH NULL-HYPOTHESIZING ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING — IN THE PALEO-CLIMATIC CONTEXT — AS A SINE QUA NON FOR FURTHER PUBLIC FUNDING. [Someone pls enhance my text here.]
    it’s a matter on a par with the Inquisition & Galileo. (And who was RIGHT!))

    • HEAR, HEAR!!!
      Isn’t it reassuring to know that these so-called “Climate-Scientists” have a distinct propensity to squirrel-away their data, obtained as a result of public-funding (so it’s *ours*, right?) in order to be able to fiddle the data-sets (sorry! — homogenize them) beyond scrutiny and trot-out new “findings” based on the ‘remediated’ data to counter the latest skeptical-challenge. It’s reminiscent of the Conjurers’ Arts … new revelations to-order!
      KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JUDITH! Mann’s ad-hominem attack on you [I can’t find the quote] speaks far more to his insecurity than yours!!!! A growing insecurity, perhaps! His Credibility Index (my subjective measure), withers by the incoming report, including his doubling-down on critics … such as Mark Steyn. (A propensity for litigiousness sits-ill with a supposed Man[n] of Science; it bespeaks a certain …. desperation?
      The frantic clinging to the flotsam & jetsam of a discredited, and useless scientific wreck ?)

    • Dr. Bates cites [at the curry blog] the NOAA CDR of total solar irradiance as an example of a well-documented data set. Unfortunately, the data are deeply flawed and the methodology dubious, so the data are not usable and should be an embarrassment for NOAA. I discuss the issue here:
      http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf and in shorter form here http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf

      My conclusion:
      • There is no support for a variable TSI ‘Background’
      • The current Climate Data Record [CDR] is not helpful to Climate Research
      • The CDR should not be based on obsolete solar activity data
      • I expect strong ‘push-back’ from entrenched ‘settled science’, but urge [at least] the solar community to be honest about the issue

      • Wow! Another instance of poor science at NOAA! Which reveals a horrible flaw in post graduate programs leading to a research degree. There are standards for research design and replication that now seem moth balled in some dusty attic. Candidates stream through a broken dam unfettered by any requirement that they know what makes for gold standard research practices. And I think I know why. The drive for money has sped past ethics and quality at the speed of light. Alas, there are few if any ways to oversee granting and doctoral committees. Their role is to advance their pet projects and be damned with competing proposals, even if those proposals rise to excellence. It is a sick infected system and I cannot envision an end to it.

    • BE, I thought about this and did some law checking. Couple hours worth. I unfortunately do not think he is in any legal jeopardy. The Information Quality Act applies to NOAA, not Karl personally. He is not a professor abusing an NSF grant; he is a government employee. His pension is secure under law; it has been granted. The Congressional subpoena contempt originated from the NOAA top administrator, not Karl.
      The main value here is probably political, given the new administration. Trump tweets fake climate data fake climate news. Rep. Smith reopens the contemp of congress inquiry demanding emails between Karl and Holdren. New admin cleans NOAA house. Refocus NASA on space and shut GISS based on the Tony Heller analyses that Myron Ebell has. That sort of thing.

  30. “… the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.
    Also, “process the software” seems an odd way of saying whatever it was intended to mean.

    This sounds like gross incompetence or stupendously stupid. Or it could be a criminal act.
    I have an external backup drive on a Win-10 system. I wonder what they were doing and what with?

    • Very odd indeed.

      A 1st year high school student mistake……once only, if they have even the slightest brains !!!

      The academic research software I used to work with was stored in several different places

      On site, and off site. Always version numbered etc etc

      Main data was stored on a read only (for us , anyway) multi-redundancy RAID server.

      Working data always backed up to external drives that were disconnected at night.

      Tom Karl can’t have thought his work was important enough to back up..

      Or it was DELIBERATE. !!

      • Every major system I have worked on had procedures in place to automatically back up everything.
        That was even true for desk top computers.
        Even small companies that I have worked for (less than 20 employees) knew the importance of backing up everything.

    • “This sounds like gross incompetence”
      Or just David Rose. If you read Bates own account at Climate Etc, he just says that a computer failed (it happens) and someone made a joke. There is no serious claim that anything was lost.

      • “Anthony Watts February 4, 2017 at 11:23 pm”

        He is ex-CSIRO, these types don’t give up easily even in the face of real evidence.

      • May I respectfully disagree Mr watts?
        Nick is doing fine work here,as he always does.
        Defending the indefensible and digging ever deeper.
        Soon he may match Brad Keyes in a level of satire and parody of the “Very Model of a major climatologist apologist”.

      • Anthony, I hear your frustration but please don’t cut Nick off. For people like me who don’t necessarily understand it all at the first sitting, Nick’s comments are really useful.

        They let me know, in the simplest terms possible, what is not the correct argument and he makes the most “interesting” strawmen.

        Saves a lot of time for me.

        BTW just wanted to add my thanks for the brilliant work you do. I rarely, if ever comment. But I always read. Every day.

        Thank you.

      • Anthony,

        Nick, it’s time for you to just STFU

        Indeed, because if he doesn’t you might have to eventually acknowledge that your BOMBSHELL isn’t quite the BOMBSHELL you thought it was. That would, I imagine, be quite inconvenient.

      • Anthony Watts,
        Your advice for Nick to STFU I agree with because he has got in too deep and is now trivialising.
        The danger is that readers might think that you are giving an order, not advice.
        My opinion, FWIW, is that Nick should not be shut down. He can give cogent, informed, useful views on matters of interest, a different slant that can be useful. But often frustrating.
        Frustration is not grounds for a ban. But of course, it is your blog, your say.
        Cheers. Geoff

    • While I can not say for certain what is meant, I have seen instances where the same program (code) gives different results on different computers due to how the computers handle things like rounding, precision, etc. A project I worked on required that reports provide the code and identify exactly what computer was used.

  31. The rats desert the sinking ship. How convenient to bring this forward now. Why didn’t he publish a piece on WUWT while he was still at NOAA? He had to know that telling his bosses wasn’t wgoing to change anything. This proves to me that his current action is simply self-serving.

    You will see a lot more of this crap as we move forward. Unfortunately, they will all sail away in lifeboats full of taxpayers money as they gather their pensions. Nobody will be held accountable and that will be the greatest failure of the Trump regime.

    If you are really going to drain the swamp it should be through a channel dug directly to jail or a Board that penalizes, including removal of pension. These lung fish, otherwise known as bureaucrats, will survive the draining.

    I also told Myron Ebell directly that if they don’t continue to monitor those remaining they will not change, or implement anything. They will just wait, as they always do, until the furore blows over and it will be business as usual. Reagan took a step in the right direction when he fired the traffic controllers. However, it didn’t change much in the long term, otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess now.

    • Chances are that his hands have been tied giving evidence to the Lamar Smith committee or any number of activities that outsiders could not know about. Please be fair and give the guy credit for what some would see as justifiable though distasteful action. In a wide forum that would take guts.

      • I concur; there have long been reports of dissidence over this paper. I don’t suspect Bates of being late to the party.
        =============

      • Also, the timing provides a long enough passage of time so that the damage done by Karl et al is clearly visible. Had it been debunked before Paris, things would have continued on unchanged, as is, we’re now hyping an effort to limit warming to 1.5 degrees instead of 2.0 (Karl et al had to retreat on the rate of overall warming to get rid of the pause), and Obama has managed to redirect a substantial, but tolerable amount of money to fix a problem that doesn’t need fixing, and likely can’t be fixed by reducing CO2 emissions.

  32. “computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure”

    Complete failure? By what, A sledge hammer?

    • Where is the public wit of NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt for the last couple of months?

      Is he hiding in a sanctuary city sheltering alarmist climate scientists who have undocumented climate data?

      👏

      John

      • I suspect that the inner offices of NOAA, GISS and a fair few research departments t some well known universities are starting to look a little like this.

        It’s an old Heineken ad, that has previously been repurposed in loving memory of Arthur Andersen. (If I have “whoopsied ” the link, I apologise in advance.

        It’s been making me chuckle since 2007, but it just kinda seems to ‘fit’ now

  33. I do not doubt Karl was the central figure (a Lieutenant in the climate mafia) in the scam at NOAA/NCEI, but it was quarterbacked from higher-up, most likely by John Holdren at the White House.

    Holdren had his Lieutenants out in the field doing the dirty work: Karl, Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer… all highly placed government pseudoscientist hacks willing to sell their reputation for The Noble Cause and the accompanying fame and adulations from the White House.

    John Holdren probably was the central, “go-to guy” to get Executive Editor Marcia McNutt to publish the Karl PauseBuster paper with a coordinated pal-review and to dispense with Science’s standards on data transparency and reproducibility.

    Marcia McNutt no doubt was to be rewarded for her obsequience as Holdren’s follow-on in the Hillary Clinton WH as her Science Advisor. Oops!

    • And they thought they won the presidential election loosely. And then that ….. It must have driven them into the marrow of their bones. And I think there will be more. This was only the beginning of the flagpole.

  34. Thank You, Dr. John Bates!
    Thank You for having the courage to speak the Truth, knowing you would be immediately be abused for this increasingly rare public display of integrity in science!

  35. As an ordinary citizen who’s been interested in astronomy, physics, geology, biology and natural sciences my whole life I am both saddened and outraged at what seems to me to be a serious loss of integrity and honesty by far too many so-called scientists. The system has to run on “trust, but verify” – they are effectively killing the trust, and keeping others from verifying. I sincerely hope that a much-needed housecleaning to take out the trash is about to finally begin.

  36. It is what happens when you have scientists who are bureaucrats.

    Bates is no hero. He just knows the ship is sinking. He would not be speaking out if Hillary Clinton was elected, otherwise he would have been more vocal earlier.

    • Right on Tim. Can you imagine the great big aw sheet those guys had when they learned Trump was elected?

    • Bates immediately contacted Lamar Smith, although Smith didn’t mention his name, instead citing him as a high-level insider.

    • Yes, i like the sinking ship idea. Bates saw the torpedo hit and knows what it means and moved to save himself. We won’t see the rest of the “rats” until the lower decks are flooded. Then we will see the real extent of fraud. Right now they are scurrying about looking for new hiding places. Much will be revealed I think.

      • Half a billion solar collectors would have bouyed up that boat. Bates was prudent; the story was out anyway, the article sad junk, progressively discredited. But the enslaving and cachectifying narrative would have steamed on had Hillary won, and the identity of the whistleblower would have been better left unpiped. I’d congratulate Bates’ efforts, whatever the timing, and thank him for his courage.

        Yep, that boat’s a slaver. Note carefully, insurors.
        =================

    • I think this is both illogical and unfair. He has retired. That would be liberating regardless of whether HRC were elected. A federal officer’s pension is the only thing he can take with him.

    • thank you tim Ball for your quote:
      “It is what happens when you have scientists who are bureaucrats.
      Bates is no hero. He just knows the ship is sinking. He would not be speaking out if Hillary Clinton was elected, otherwise he would have been more vocal earlier.”
      This raises the notion of it all being scripted according to the Pay-Master of the Day. There’s an increasingly Hollywood-esque quality about the Global Warming Script, with less-and-less to do with good, sound Science, and more to do with politics, starting at international levels, and devolving to individual countries.
      I would suggest that national Leaders come in broadly two categories:
      Ones who are adept at handling crises (e.g., Churchill) and ….
      Ones (many!) who are bureaucratic managers in non-crisis times … (Harper, much detested as a result, despite sound management, to Canada’s great loss. P.S. Look what we’ve got .. another Leader driven more by Legacy-making than sound management!)
      And … no. 3 of 2! … leaders who invent crises to amass popularity and power-base (e.g., Hitler, Putin).

      It would seem axiomatic that any Leader wants to demonstrate Leadership, if only to justify his/her election, let alone improve their re-election chances, let alone forge a “legacy” by which they will be remembered in the most +ve terms (good luck Obama!)
      And so, it seems that the Global Warming Script fits precisely with this ambit … an Issue to create hopefully endless opportunities for demonstrating strong leadership, boosting approval-ratings, and leaving a “Legacy” so as to polish retrospectively what otherwise wd. be a dismal record (“Hello, Barack!”)
      *Our* issue is to de-construct the incestuous relationship between ever-too-eager (so-called Scientific) supplicants who are Issue-promoting, and grasping at the lavish funding to serve & satisfy whatever the Political Pay-Masters want said …. in their respective quest for Issues to serve their narrow aims.
      The Swamp does indeed need draining.

    • I think this is both illogical and unfair. He has retired. That would be liberating regardless of whether HRC were elected. A federal officer’s pension is the only thing he can take with him.

    • Tim, that’s perhaps a bit unfair. He wasn’t vocal earlier because he was still employed and wished to remain so. He’s retired now, so fear of retaliation by his bosses no longer exists for him. We can’t know if he would or would not have spoken up if HRC won the election, we can only be thankful that he did speak up now that there is someone in the white house who will act on the malfeasance he pointed out.

    • Tim, I think you are being somewhat unkind in your “assessment” – and particularly in your insistence that “Bates is no hero”. I doubt that he considers himself as such. Furthermore, as Dr. Judith Curry remarked in her footnote introduction of Bates’ (much longer) post:

      Shortly after publication of K15, John and I began discussing our concerns about the paper. I encouraged him to come forward publicly with his concerns. Instead, he opted to try to work within the NOAA system to address the issues –to little effect. Upon his retirement from NOAA in November 2016, he decided to go public with his concerns.

      Furthermore, if you read Lamar Smith’s very revealing timeline, which begins with June 2015:

      https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA%20Karl%20Study%20One-Pager.pdf

      it seems to me that it is quite likely that Bates may well have taken some – perhaps “covert” – action prior to his recent retirement.

  37. The US does NOT have to withdraw from The Paris Agreement, since we never ratified the agreement in the first place. The US is not yet some banana republic where some “leader” can unilaterally decide such things.

    • Really? The president appears to disagree with you:
      “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

      • That quote does not say what you want it to say.
        There is nothing in it about Trump acting unilaterally.

      • MarkW February 6, 2017 at 9:49 am
        That quote does not say what you want it to say.
        There is nothing in it about Trump acting unilaterally.

        Since the quote shows the president objecting to the legislative branch doing its job of ruling on the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, it would appear that he favors acting unilaterally.

      • Phil,

        Telling Freudian slip. Today’s activist judicial branch has indeed usurped the powers of the legislative branch.

        Trump’s order is plainly constitutional. Consider this precedent, an immigration law written by the Founders and Framers. For “wild Irishmen”, read “Islamist terrorists”:

        http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

        The strong steps that Adams took in response to the French foreign threat also included severe repression of domestic protest. A series of laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to deport foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote. Previously a new immigrant would have to reside in the United States for five years before becoming eligible to vote, but a new law raised this to 14 years.

        Clearly, the Federalists saw foreigners as a deep threat to American security. As one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to “invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.” Not coincidentally, non-English ethnic groups had been among the core supporters of the Democratic-Republicans in 1796.

      • Gloateus Maximus February 6, 2017 at 11:04 am
        Phil,

        Telling Freudian slip. Today’s activist judicial branch has indeed usurped the powers of the legislative branch.

        Trump’s order is plainly constitutional. Consider this precedent, an immigration law written by the Founders and Framers. For “wild Irishmen”, read “Islamist terrorists”:

        http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

        The strong steps that Adams took in response to the French foreign threat also included severe repression of domestic protest. A series of laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams.

        Three of the Alien and Sedition laws were repealed by another founder (Jefferson), one of them violated the First Amendment. Those laws were a central part of Jefferson’s defeat of Adams in the 1800 election!
        One result of those laws was the trial of a Democratic-Republican congressman from Vermont under the Alien and Sedition Acts for an essay he wrote accusing the Adams administration of “ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice”. The Supreme Court’s right of judicial review was not established until Marbury vs Madison three years later so this is not a very good precedent on the constitutional issue.
        The application of the one remaining Act during WWII was criticized by Pres. Reagan and the Congress as follows: “a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, internment of civilians during World War II … without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Sound familiar?

  38. Great start to exposing the “deplorables” of the Obama Administration and the climate science shenanigans of his completely corrupt regime and the Democratic Party.

    President Trump will have a ball with this revelation.

  39. Gavin Schmidt gave a TED talk where he argued that the climate models were “artful”. Now I understand what he was talking about. Art can be used to illustrate the scientific method, but he must have meant that “art” was being used instead of rigorous science. (sigh)

  40. ‘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.

    UTTER. AND. COMPLETE. HORSE. SH*T!!!!

    Unless this work was done COMPLETELY on a desk top computer and ALL the code and ALL the data were on it, and it ALONE, this claim of a complete failure simply beggars belief.

    First of all, it is doubtful that such code could even run on a desk top computer, but let’s suppose for a moment that it could. The paper is “Karl et al”! He had co-authors! For ALL the code and ALL the data to be on a single desk top computer, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAKE TURNS USING IT WHICH NOBODY IN THE MODERN WORLD DOES.

    Further, code of this type just doesn’t run on a desk top computer unless you don’t mind each run taking a few YEARS. Which is why it is doubtful it was on a desk top. More likely it was on a high performance compute cluster which is a whole bunch of servers with shared storage. But modern shared storage protects data by creating two to three virtual copies of the data across many disk drives. The failure of one, and in most cases even two drives simultaneously triggers the rebuild of the failed data on “hot spare” drives. The chances of losing ALL the data and ALL the code to a “failure” are infinitesimally small. You could PULVERIZE every server in the cluster, and you would STILL have ALL the code and ALL the data and the only way you could not run it again is if the servers in the cluster were one of a kind CPU’s never before and never again manufactured by anybody (the cost of which would be INSANE, even by the standards of “feed us the money by the boat load” of climate science and no semi-conductor company on earth would screw themselves over trying to do such a thing).

    If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone and there is no way to recreated the computer system on which it was stored and run, there are, in my mind, three likely possibilities:

    1. A lot of people are outright lying about this.
    2. There was a deliberate act of sabotage.
    3. There have been multiple failures of hardware that make winning the lottery a hundred times in succession look like a good bet.

    • Dr Bates has a long rant at Climate Etc. His version of this story goes thus:
      “They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.”

      Rose skipped the “tongue in cheek” bit.

      • “Rose skipped the “tongue in cheek” bit.”

        It makes no difference to the story. It does not answer the question of whether the computer died a natural death or not.

      • 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. !!!!

    • @davidmhoffer: Strange, the links to the GHCN archive pointed too here give the data and some code (probably not the correct code) however it does state that it runs on a desktop. Takes about 1 hour to run.

      This is not a simulation, it is a data processing job.

      • If true, it is still unlikely that the data itself was on the desk top as this is maintained separately ina manner accessible to all researchers. As for the code, there were multiple authors of the paper. Unlikely that the code was written on a single computer in the first place as each contributor would have had to work on their own piece of the whole thing. And even if it was all written on a single desk top, that it wasn’t backed up in an organization in which data management is paramount, is unlikely.

        The notion that all was lost because of a computer failure is absurd.

  41. Chapter 8 Rewrite (1996)
    The Hockey Stick
    Yamal
    Upside-down Tijlander
    Hide the Decline
    “Lonnie Thompson, serial non-archiver” (per Steve McIntyre)
    Gleickgate
    28Gate
    Glaciergate
    Climategate
    PausebusterGate?

    Fraud after fraud after fraud by the catastrophe-mongers. How Mosher and the other trolls here can defend the despicable conduct by those “scientists” promoting CAGW and sleep at night is beyond me.

    • +100
      Agree.

      Anyone who understands what science is and still attempts to defend the last 20 years of main-stream climate scientism are themselves part of the pseudoscience of the “Emperor’s new clothes” clothier sycophants.

      AGW CO2 theory is likely true, but in their attempt to accept a political activist catastrophe message in their work, they became the very thing they claim they eschew.

    • “How Mosher and the other trolls here can defend the despicable conduct by those “scientists” promoting CAGW and sleep at night is beyond me.”

      Because THEY are part of it… !

  42. Remember when we thought the Climategate emails were going to make a difference? They didn’t and this won’t either.

    • “Remember when we thought the Climategate emails were going to make a difference? They didn’t and this won’t either.”

      Because you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

      Climate Alarmism was plausible in the past, not anymore. Nobody following the Scientific Method can support the Climate Alarmist hypothesis – because observed reality refutes the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis.

    • Bruckner8 February 4, 2017 at 8:20 pm
      Remember when we thought the Climategate emails were going to make a difference? They didn’t and this won’t either.

      But in Britain the PM and the legislature were 97% behind the alarmists. Whereas in the US the majority of the legislature is against the alarmists, and the head of government is a RHINO, not a RINO.

      • Roger Knights: RHINO v RINO. I admit, as a Brit I had to look those up in the Urban Dict. Worth it. Gave me a good chuckle. Thanks.

    • That’s what 617 Squadron might have concluded but instead they kept going in over the flak until the dams broke.

    • Climategate may well have disrupted the Copenhagen CoP. They certainly gave the Saudi’s a lot of support in their stance there. Don’t forget, Copenhagen was supposed to become a summit meeting of the world’s climate leaders as they approved what was supposed to be achieved.

      Instead, Obama was saved “by the bell” in the form of a blizzard moving in on Washington and he beat it home while AF-1 could still land at Andrews AFB. After that, there was no point in celebrating the rest of the leaders signing the accord that set the stage for the Paris meeting.

      I don’t think we have a really good idea of all the things Climategate did. Given the change in readership at WUWT, I think a lot of people got the idea that the gloabl warming mantra was wearing thin.

  43. “UTTER. AND. COMPLETE. HORSE. SH*T!!!!”
    Yes. It is David Rose. The report doesn’t make much sense, and this least of all.

    “If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone”
    Yes. They aren’t.

    • No idea what you are getting at Nick. In place of your usual cogent arguments you’ve gone cryptic.

      I just read Bates’ own words on Climate Etc. I’ll stick with HORSE SH*T. This is a cover up with a blown cover.

      • Dr Bates version there is this:
        “They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.”
        Rose’s version is not recognisable. Bates is just saying that the computer crashed and someone made a joke.

      • How many different places are you going to post the same argument Nick?

        STILL horse sh*t. The fact that he went on to talk about the joke that it triggered changes the claim of a “complete failure” by precisely ZERO, and the claim that it was just a “crash” is entirely a fabrication of yours. He said no such thing, and a crash would not have had the claimed effect except in the MOST unusual of circumstances.

      • ““If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone””
        OK David. What are you actually on about? Who suggested “If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone”? What is the basis for it? I thought David Rose was making it up, but it seems that you have enhanced it.

      • Nick there is a pattern to your arguments. It’s pretty lame. Here is the converse. Are you suggesting that ALL of the data and ALL of the code are still in existence and properly archived?

        See how lame it is when your pattern or argument is reversed. Now is a really good time for you to acknowledge the deficiencies on the alarmist side. One will do. Are you man enough?

  44. The graph shown here is the usual David Rose dishonesty. The difference between NOAA and HADCRUT is almost entirely due to the difference in anomaly bases (1961-90 vs 1901-2000). If you put them on the same 1981-2010 base, it looks like this;

    • “he graph shown here is the usual David Rose dishonesty.”

      Nick is trying to “kill the messenger”. Let’s not argue the merits of the case, let’s argue about the character of the author.

    • You are using the same deception Gavin used to debunk Goddard’s raw versus adjusted data. You use a large y axis range to hide a significant difference between data sets. MO data is warmer at start and cooler at the end. Who is being dishonest here? I would argue you NS.

      • ” You use a large y axis range to hide a significant difference between data sets.”
        No, here is the difference. Here are NOAA (red) and HADCRUT (blue) with the same axis range as David Rose’s plot in the article.

        The difference is almost all the difference of anomaly base. That is clearer with a 12-month running average. On the same base, there is nothing like that difference.

      • ” You use a large y axis range to hide a significant difference between data sets.”

        No, here is the difference. Here are NOAA (red) and HADCRUT (blue) with the same axis range as David Rose’s plot in the article.

        The difference is almost all the difference of anomaly base. That is clearer with a 12-month running average. On the same base, there is nothing like that difference.

      • So we move from ERSSTV2 to ERSSTV3 in 2009 and they adjusted the SST trend up by 0.3C. In V3 to V3b in 2012, adjustments of another 0.1C, The ERSSTV3b to ERSSTV4 in 2015 another +0.12C. That is 0.52C all together over just 6 years. And we don’t even really know what happened to the data in 2016 because noone knows where it comes from (some ships, ICOADs, where is the raw data).

        How come none of that ever shows up in your charts Nick?

      • Nick, I was referring to the comparison graph above. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2017/02/hadnoaa.png

        If you plotted this graph zoomed in on the Y axis you can clearly see that HadCrut is warmer during the start and cooler in the end i.e. lower trend. Gavin S tried to call Goddard’s raw V adjusted data fake by performing the same deception when in reality it just agreed with Goddard’s graph. You have done something similar on this graph by using such a large y axis that this difference is hard to spot. It is deceptive. Was this intentional?

      • HadSST3 (blue) directly on top of ERSSTv4 (red); gl SSTa, common baseline 1998-2016;

        There’s a distinct and quite evident difference, Nick. Deal with it.

    • You would not have a problem with bases (and hence a problem in comparing one data set with another) if instead of anomalies, actual temperatures were at all times plotted.

      • richard verney on February 5, 2017 at 2:41 am

        … if instead of anomalies, actual temperatures were at all times plotted.

        And how then do you compare UAH at 264 Kelvin and GISS at 288?

        How do you compare so completely different datasets like UAH and MEI, or Arctic sea ice extent decline and AMO?

        There are no problems with anomalies, richard verney. One just needs to properly manage their baselining. For example, by shifting temperature series such that they all fit to UAH’s period, 1981-2010.

        And above all: you seem to still not have integrated the notion of “annual cycle removal” yet.
        Bob Tisdale might help you…

  45. Bates is just saying that the computer crashed and someone made a joke.

    HORSE. SH*T!!!!!

    From your OWN quote of Bates above:

    I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure

    That he goes on to say that this lead to a joke about it is immaterial, and I submit that you know D*MN WELL that is the case. And my claim that a “complete failure” of this type is incredibly unlikely stands. That is an excuse, a jaw dropping, count-on-the-ignorance-of-the-public-about-modern-computing-to-buy-this-one kind of excuse. Perhaps Bates buys it. Perhaps the people who made the joke were being sarcastic. I’d even believe both were true. But for YOU to defend this Nick is unconscionable.

    • There is no evidence in Bates article that there is any basis to:
      “If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone and there is no way to recreated the computer system on which it was stored and run”
      Bates didn’t say anything about that in his post. It’s all made up by Rose based on that “tongue in cheek” remark.

      How about calmly stating what I am unconscionably defending, and the evidence for it?

      • It’s all made up by Rose based on that “tongue in cheek” remark.

        The claim wasn’t tongue in cheek. The claim was in regard to an assertion so preposterous that it lead to tongue in cheek remarks.

        Which brings us back to your unconscionable attempt to play the troll by dragging the thread off topic and demanding proof of something that anyone who reads the thread already has ample evidence for.

        The cover is blown Nick. You can’t put it back on by reinterpreting the facts.

      • Point me to where anyone other that David Rose said data and code are gone. It isn’t even clear that Rose is saying that.

        The fact is that Karl was describing a new version of ERSST. That has been coming out regularly. The code clearly hasn’t been lost. The results are being regularly reproduced.

      • Point me to where anyone other that David Rose said data and code are gone.

        For the results to be not replicable due to (as per YOUR QUOTE OF BATES) a “complete failure” the data and code would have to be gone. Not just gone, but wildly improbably gone. Stop playing silly goose.

      • “For the results to be not replicable due to (as per YOUR QUOTE OF BATES) a “complete failure””
        Again, Bates didn’t say that. He said someone made a joke about it. No-one has seriously said that the results are not replicable.

      • David,
        You seem to have made up a whole story that is beyond even the imagination of David Rose. As far as I can tell (because you won’t state it clearly) you are saying that all data and code has been lost, and NOAA crashed a computer to cover it up. Or something.

        But that has no basis in these reports. Based on what Bates says himself at CE:
        1. Some peripheral data (GHCN – the paper as about SST and ERSST V4) was not archived according to some bureaucratic process that seems to have been his baby
        2. There is no allegation that data or code was actually lost, and it isn’t at all clear what that data or code could be. He complains that there was some data used that had not been through some formal process.
        3. He says that a computer failed. That is all. He doesn’t say (seriously) that it affected anything. Data and code are of course routinely backed up, apart from also being on other computers of the co-authors etc. He says someone made a joke about it. There is no serious alleegation at all. And to say (as you seem to) that NOAA is using that as an excuse to cover up something (what?) is just off the planet.

      • As far as I can tell (because you won’t state it clearly) you are saying that all data and code has been lost

        No, I said that this was improbable to the point of being absurd. Which you just agreed to by pointing out that backups are routine. You’ve claimed I said something I didn’t. I was ridiculing the possibility that anything was lost due to a computer “failure” and you attempted to spin it into something else.

      • 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. !!!!

  46. Even worse, nearly HALF of the data is now ‘estimated’. Even if your algorithm is perfect (which this article indicates is not the case) the GHCN surface data remains badly contaminated by estimates – and much of the apparent surface warming comes from these estimates (which assume there is warming).
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/analysis-of-ushcn-dataset/

    The massive use of estimate data completely dwarfs even the serious software and procedural flaws from NOAA.

    • Indeed much can be hinder under ‘estimated’ the old problems of data availability and reliability never went away when the world of ‘settled science’ came about , they where merely ‘modeled ‘ out of existence.

  47. “Even worse, nearly HALF of the data is now ‘estimated’. “
    For heavens sake – you say that about GHCN and then link to a post about USHCN (no longer used). None of that has anything to to with GHCN or global indices.

    • So what Karl did is 100% AOK with you Nick? Including what has been disclosed by John Bates?

      Is that your model of how science should be done? And your model of how government bureaucracies should operate? And do you really think that the timing of the release of the paper and adjustment of data was purely coincidental with the Paris conference?

      Nothing to see here? Move along folks? These are not the droids you are looking for?

      Here’s a hint: don’t damage your own reputation defending the indefensible.

      • “So what Karl did is 100% AOK with you Nick?”

        ANYTHING that protects the ideology of Mann and Co’s Hokey Team and keeps the AGW hoax alive is evidently OK with Nick.

        When you’re out there convinced that only your efforts can succeed in ‘Saving the Planet™’, the end justifies the means.

  48. USHCN data forms a large chunk of the GHCN. You didn’t know that?

    You don’t know that there are thousands of kilometers between surface stations in many parts of the World ?

    Go and look at the RAW data. You will see that nearly half is marked as ‘E’ for estimate. Stop replying and go and look for yourself and the original data before it is processed. This is why the surface data does not match the satellites and balloon datasets.

    Did you never look at the RAW data ? you cannot claim to be a competent scientist unless you do.

    • “USHCN data forms a large chunk of the GHCN. You didn’t know that?”

      The former USHCN stations form a modest chunk of GHCN. But GHCN doesn’t use USHCN infilling. It uses the data as supplied on CLIMAT forms to go into the GHCVN unadjusted, and then that goes through pairwise homogenisation, just like elsewhere.

      “Did you never look at the RAW data ? “
      Yes. I do it all the time. I produce a monthly index , based on GHCN unadjusted, and ERSST. And so I know that adjustment makes very little difference.

      • Nick,
        Never having traced this so I do not know, it seems that much Aust land T data was taken at nominal 0900 hours so TOBS should not apply., Do you know if somewhere along the trail there might be a TOB adjustment made in a global adjustment by any of the authorities? I’d be relieved if there was a definite ‘NO’.
        Cheers Geoff.

      • Geoff,
        As I keep insisting, the GHCN unadjusted data, and the BoM unadjusted that you can get here, are just that – unadjusted. I went through the BoM data for Melbourne, and checked a dozen or so old readings with old newspapers. They all lined up. If anyone really wants to claim that is not so, there is a simple remedy. Just find one entry, and an old newspaper, and show a discrepancy? Despite all the years of kvetching, no-one seems to have tried this obvious step.

      • “The former USHCN stations form a modest chunk of GHCN”
        Really? The vast bulk of the stations are in the US and the GHCN’s historical data comes from the same data that forms the USHCN.

        So you are saying that the estimate data in the USHCN has been magically replaced with unestimated data in the GHCN ? that’s a neat trick, how’d they do it ? Either the data are sparse or there is temporal infilling.

        Furthermore, you have not addressed the sparseness of the sampling where there are thousands of kilometers between points in some regions of the globe. This is spatially sparse.

        Yes, I’m aware of your site. It’s got the same kind of academic-grade scientific software I used to write when I did my PhD. The description of the ERSST you use says this

        The Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset is a global monthly sea surface temperature analysis derived from the International Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Dataset with missing data filled in by statistical methods.

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst

        Infilled data are not ‘data’ according to the Scientific Method. They are ‘hypothesis’.

        Only in climate (pseudo-)science do people think estimated data are worth anything. In astrophysics it would be lovely if we could just ‘estimate’ in extra-solar planets for our gravitational lensing discoveries, but everyone understands this is preposterous, except climate ‘scientists’. We also understand don’t exclude *natural* effects when we look for explanations for our observations (as the IPCC’s terms of reference do).

        But then, climate science is not about science it is about the United Nations rent-seeking and Collectivist wealth confiscation, as Christina Figueres has admitted numerous times (as she lavish praise on the economic model of Communist China while calling its air ‘breathable’).
        http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism

        The observational data for man as the dominant factor in climate variability (such hubris!) is simply not there. The true deniers pretend the GCM are an accurate reflection of reality when it is clear they are worse than even the low standard of most scientific software (I used to write such models, and scientific software is still far behind the State of the Art or quality and *accuracy*, despite what scientists tend to think).

      • Nick,
        I have cross checked pages of handwritten also, with the same result. I checked against BOM CDO.
        My query was about cross checks with a final product like those from GISS, NOAA, Hadcru etc. I can do this with difficulty through unfamiliarity, but no sense duplicating work that you seem to have done already. Have you already shown some day by day comparisons of BOM CDO with the internationals above, or is it hard to get daily data from these internationals at the stage it is ready for input to these?
        Geoff

      • Nick re newspaper records,
        Colleagues here have done much Trove searching and found frequent mismatch with BOM current records. Typically, if a comment is elicited from an authority, it will be dismissive, like the mismatch being caused by older, inappropriate equipment, or being too small to matter in the larger scheme.
        I wonder if we are now at the stage of a comprehensive review to see if all these dismissed small errors aggregate to a figure of concern.
        I can send you the newspaper comparisons once I get them from colleagues who did the searches.
        Geoff.

      • The supposedly raw data can no longer be trusted. NOAA flunkies have long put their thumbs on thermometers when reading alleged temperatures.

        These are the same miscreants who put a new station in Death Valley, facing a southern-exposed cliff, because the perfectly good long-standing one wasn’t producing the desired results.

      • “…For heavens sake – you say that about GHCN and then link to a post about USHCN (no longer used)…”

        “…The former USHCN stations form a modest chunk of GHCN…”

        Said by the very same person 16 minutes apart.

      • Geoff Sherrington
        On the subject of searching Trove for historic newspapers – it’s worse than we thought!
        News Corp has removed much of their regional newspaper content from Trove and it is now unavailable online, even to a mate who is a regional editor.
        Will be keen to see how your project goes – all the best!

    • I don’t think I would trust Hadcrut either since it seems to have reduced the 1998 El Nino that the sat data has as matching 2016. Even one of the intervening years looks as high as 1998. It is inconvenient to their cause to have a year nearly 20 years ago similar to today given the ‘unprecedented warming’ going on.

  49. There is this little problem of Zeke Hausfather, et. al.’s paper from a few weeks back which confirmed that the ERSST4 record was good. Give it up guys, the pause or hiatus or whatever you want to call it is dead.

    • Based on my beliefs and information to hand I can confirm Earths moon (the bigger one) is made of green cheese.
      The smaller one is really an alien probe sent to monitor human progress.

    • oddly building on quick sand does not suddenly create solid foundation , it merely results in unstable building .

    • Bill Illis,thinks it is NOT good:

      ” Bill Illis
      February 5, 2017 at 7:05 am

      So we move from ERSSTV2 to ERSSTV3 in 2009 and they adjusted the SST trend up by 0.3C. In V3 to V3b in 2012, adjustments of another 0.1C, The ERSSTV3b to ERSSTV4 in 2015 another +0.12C. That is 0.52C all together over just 6 years. And we don’t even really know what happened to the data in 2016 because noone knows where it comes from (some ships, ICOADs, where is the raw data).

      How come none of that ever shows up in your charts Nick?”

      You FIRST have to explain the adjustments,which always goes upward.

      • You FIRST have to explain the adjustments,which always goes upward.

        The real trick is they adjust older data *downward*. Then they correctly claim that “our adjustments made the average colder”. This is true.

        What they don’t say, and this is of the utmost significance, is that the adjustment downward is correlated with time. That is, they adjust the older data downward. This produces a lower mean temperature, which they then crow about as camouflage for their subterfuge, but it increases the TREND in the data. Since the trend is the core of the debate these SYSTEMATIC adjustments to the data are done to try make the data match the model – when actual science is about doing it the other way around.

        This is all explained because this is not about science, which is why the Scientific Method is not being used. This is about politics: the UN is ‘rent seeking’ with is ‘carbon pollution tax’ so it becomes independent of US funding (the US always blocks the UN’s Marxist wealth redistribution theft plans).
        http://green-agenda.com

      • Now,
        Thinking of adjustments more, one can count the simple number of them made upwards versus down; then next weight that by the number of adjustments that are of short duration versus going; then incorporate the magnitude of the adjustment in degrees. Some are big, like several degrees C.
        I have never seen a study with duration and magnitude included but suggest that it would be quite illuminating.
        Geoff

  50. “Factcheck: Mail on Sundays astonishing evidence about global temperature rise,” Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief, 2/5/17

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

    “I recently led a team of researchers that evaluated NOAAs updates to their ocean temperature record. In a paper published last month in the journal Science Advances, we compared the old NOAA record and the new NOAA record to independent instrumentally homogenous records created from buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats. We found that the new NOAA record agreed quite well with all of these, while the old NOAA record showed much less warming.”

    • How many of those Argo floats had their data ignored when they showed cooling instead of warming?
      About 1/3 wasn’t it ?

    • while the old NOAA record showed much less warming.”

      Clever misdirection. That it shows less warming over its entire length in no way justifies the increased warming concentrated in the last few years to “erase” the “pause”.

  51. As a former NOAA employee who filed two whistleblower complaints, I feel compelled to offer my humble opinions:

    1. Dr. Bates should have spoken up long before now, as it was his duty to save the nation from misspending untold taxpayer resources based on flawed results. (Perhaps he was too busy with Downton Abbey. JK.) Now that he’s retired, there is not much danger to him, is there, except maybe from the smear artists employed by the CAGW cabal. Dr. Bates is not really a true whistleblower, as he is no longer associated with the organization. Try blowing the whistle while still inside, and see what happens – you will be called names to your face; you will be vilified; your reputation will be ruined; you will never be promoted; the administration will try to fire you, or at least demote you; you will not receive awards you deserve, or, if you do receive an award, it will be minimal and not commensurate with what should have been disbursed, and will only be issued to cover any appearance of bias.

    2. Most if not all government employees are, or quickly learn to become, yes-men and yes-women for the sake of preserving their promotion potential, and to receive or continue receiving positive performance appraisals and the potential for awards and bonuses, deserved or undeserved. This is group-think at its worst. Fortunately for safe air travel, airlines are finally encouraging subordinate pilots and crew members to vocalize any problems they think are happening in order to prevent disasters. This kind of atmosphere needs to be instilled in our government agencies, instead of demanding, even tacitly, blind obedience.

    3. As NOAA became more administratively bent toward the ideas of CAGW, I personally was pressured by my former supervisor (now comfortably retired himself) to destroy a binder that I produced for the office staff’s edification about studies concerning human-caused global warming versus natural climate cycles. There was really no convincing most of the staff members that the climate changes naturally anyway. They couldn’t admit natural climate variations in any case, as they blew with the prevailing wind from Vichy, er, I mean Silver Spring.

    4. Whistleblowers are not protected by the watchdogs specifically designed to do just that. Inspectors General should also be looking at the efficacy of entities such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, which from my observation has been put in place to cover up the myriad misdeeds of the agencies and their parent Departments, not to protect employees. In many cases, the MSPB is part of the problem, not any kind of solution or help to beleaguered employees.

    5. All NOAA managers and administrators need to pass mental health testing, especially regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Too many narcissists at high levels have, and are, selecting like people for their subordinates. Cronyism is rampant within this agency, and has contributed to the lowered level of effort, results, morale, and overall operational status.

    6. NOAA has been corrupt for decades. It worsened early in my career, with the advent of our Politically Correct culture mirroring society overall, and the installation of non-scientist administrators. It is vitally important that this event described by Dr. Bates be widely disseminated to the appropriate watchdogs, such as Senate and Congressional committees as well as the White House, so they can move with vigor to investigate and correct these misdeeds, for misdeeds they are. The administration and hierarchy of both NOAA and NASA over the past two decades need to be thoroughly investigated with a fine-toothed comb to reveal systemic corruption and malfeasance, not only in the climate-related arena, but in all phases of their activities, especially including personnel (mis)management.

    • 4caster – this is very good stuff. Do you think that you could work up a full post for WUWT? Or maybe two? Your language skills are obviously up to it. The time is right for these sorts of disclosures. Many of us would be intrigued to hear a few details about how your whistleblower complaints were handled.

  52. Woo-woo-woo (sound powered telephone call-up)
    “Engine Room”
    “Bridge here. Sea water temp please”
    “Same as last time, sir”
    “Thanks. Bye now”

  53. This all seems eerily familiar, somehow.
    Remember, just a few months ago…..

    Senator: Madame Secretary, Did you wipe the data on your home server?
    HER->: What? Do you mean with…. like a cloth… or something?

    …. And now we pause for a word from our sponsor….
    Is a criminal investigation closing in on you, Skippy?
    Top Secret classified data on your unsecured home server?
    Have an Inconvenient Truth that really needs to disappear…. Right Now?

    Try New And Improved Bleach Bit!
    When you fear criminal prosecution
    for your crimes against the Constitution,
    get guaranteed 100% data dissolution
    for legal deniability… and political absolution!

    Bleach Bit! Endorsed by HER-> and all who support HER->!!!

  54. Fascinating, predictable but not new. The watermelon foot soldiers were busy all about prior to their escargot fest in Paris. Down under in Dunedin, NZ, the Dunedin City Council who prides itself on following UNEP divestment strategies stepped up to the Paris promo soap box with climate change attribution blather centered on urban reclaimed coastal marshland being inundated by rising sea levels. A quick check of land subsidence and local tide gauge measures showed the facts, that together with an assumptive and possibly intentional dereliction of duty, potentially failing to clean flood water sumps and operate flood water pumps properly, thereby permitting a perfectly timed pre-Paris flood. Niccolò Machiavelli himself may well have been proud.

  55. I bet John Bates is already desperately trying to dissociate himself from David Rose.

    Too late John. You are now and forever on the WUWT pedestal.

  56. Watts, Curry and like-minded fellows have steadily dragged the Overton window toward public acceptance of the climate science community’s failures. If Trump’s White House succeeds in nudging it the rest of the way the whole house of cards may collapse.

    • Will collapse? It was never a house. It was models, all the way down.

      Oh, the _scam_. Still gonna disagree. Not will collapse, is collapsed. Paris was nothing. The Chinese agreement was nothing. Even spending however many trillion they said was nothing, would still have changed nothing.

      “There is not there, there.” And never was.

  57. “Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’”

    Really? I work in computers and it is VERY rare a computer cannot be resurrected and you can even transfer drives to another one and run them again.

    Can we spell sabotage? Can we spell criminal charge…?

      • Would like to see that after a head crash.

        Still recoverable. Requires specialist equipment and skill.

        Plus, any organization not running automated backups should have its administrators shot – after several days of well-deserved torture, of course.

        Claiming a lack of backups means a drive head crash destroys data is complete bs. Every professional organization has backups, data retention policies, Disaster Recovery policies. Only amateurs think otherwise.

      • “Moa February 5, 2017 at 1:12 pm”

        If you had seen some of the head crashes that I have seen in my time, then no equipment or skill will recover the data. I say this with confidence as I have seen head crashes that, literally, fill the disk enclosure with material scraped off the surface of the disk platter itself.

    • you mean like ‘accidentally’ storing high powered magnets next to , or ‘accidentally’ sending the machine to the crusher without taking its data out first ?
      You do have ti out quite bit of effort into having a situation where nothing can be recovered .

  58. 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.

    This sounds familiar – similar to the scandal of non-repeatability that has exploded in the life sciences, that is, medical drug discovery research especially involving molecular genetics. Attempts to replicate the highest impact papers fail more often than not. Scientists involved admit that their complex and sensitive experiments give different results with each run. This opens the door to cherry picking the results most to the liking of the author – a fraud that is easy to hide among the voluminous minutiae of the experimental method.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html

  59. The graph showing the warming comparing NOAA and the MET office has ante at the bottom stating 0=14 degrees the worlds average temperature.When I was at school about 55 years ago we were taught that the worlds parameters on average were 14.7 C @ 1013 Mb. I was then involved with aircraft it is my recollection that engine performance for take off was rated at these parameters. If perchance the standard has been reset by the global warmanists, they have shifted the goal posts to make things scary.

    • You are being too generous:
      Quack = a person who pretends who professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess.
      These people do posses skill, knowledge and qualifications and knowingly deceiving their employer and that being the past and present governments, the word could be ‘tr…..’

  60. Trump should name Bates to head NOAA. He knows the ropes. And the employees there won’t be able to credibly gripe that they’re being muzzled by a skeptical political appointee for political reasons.

      • Another drive-by. You don’t identify who “he” is in your comment. You don’t state why “he” is, in your possible opinion, an “alarmist”.

        Questions for you.. The Earth was once a glowing hot ball of magma. Has it cooled since? Andy evidence it won’t continue to cool? Was the Arctic Ocean once a swamp? Was the Eemian Warmer than the Holocene?

  61. Huh, 335 comments in 9 hours, almost a comment every 90 seconds. Is this a record for any WUWT thread?

    [No, the first few climategate (email releases) threads ran to several thousands in only a few days. .mod]

    • “We bury our dead,” said a gunner, grimly, though doubtless all were afterward dug out, for some were partly alive.

      This is from ‘A Little of Chickamauga’ by Ambrose Bierce. Please note this was chronicle, not his fictional, and overpowering, ‘Chickamauga’.
      ===============

    • That’s funny. I put it to a deficiency in the brain power (evolved with a 100% phonetic language) to make distinction between the words that sound ‘nearly’ the same but are spelt differently.

      • You should start pronouncing fill and feel in a different way if that would help your spelling? I have learned English as a written language and tend not to make those mistakes. The downside is, they tell, I have too much ll in fill.

  62. 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.

    This seems wrong. Software is my game. One thing that all software does, when given the same data, is to produce the same result. If its buggy, it may deliver the wrong result, but very very seldom a different result.,

    In order to do that it has to be run in
    (a) an environment that is in some way different
    and
    (b) be sensitive to that environment.

    Unless it is programmed specifically to look at the environment for some data – a typical case would be a random number generator which one would hope never produces the same data twice in a million years – I cant see how a ‘bug’ would be sensitive to the environment unless for example it was reading a random memory location, before it (the location) was initialised. Even then its unusual for that to produce a different result every time, with modern operating systems. In general although undefined by the program, memory allocated to a program tends to always have the same values in it.

    It’s more usual to find this sort of behaviour when there is a hardware bug – say a bad memory cell – which might or might not affect a program depending on where it was loaded.

    With respect this statement has the hall marks of a Chinese Whisper. Its been misreported by someone who didn’t understand what the actual issue was.

    • It doesn’t mean there is random number generator used. NOAA doesn’t redo computer runs until the data gets an update (why would they?). If, for example, a new data point causes a site to be homogenized into a significantly different value, that result can cascade through the process until the final result is very different from what would be expected by merely adding a few new data points.

    • This seems wrong. Software is my game. One thing that all software does, when given the same data, is to produce the same result. If its buggy, it may deliver the wrong result, but very very seldom a different result.,

      Ever heard of a ‘model spread’. Well, it goes with a single model as well.

      If your software is indeterministic, it opens more paths for cherry-picking. Nice.

    • Most academic-grade scientific software is TERRIBLE by modern professional standards. They don’t know any of the modern techniques: Unit Testing (automated regression testing), Test-Driven Development, Continuous Integration, Infrastructure as Code, etc etc.

      This is to be expected, most students have not studied software engineering, and those that have generally have almost no experience. Hence, whenever I’m asked to help doctoral students with their software (which I am from time to time via my academic contacts) I find their software is as bad as the software I used to write two decades ago. And whenever I read through modern academic software I am equally horrified at it. Scientists are trained to be good at science, but the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies when they try write software unless they make a huge concerted effort to try approach the State of The Art (which is advancing far faster than graduate students and most researchers keep up).

      This is typical of the poor quality scientific software development practices which are widespread. And the bureaucrats wants to make Trillion-dollar decisions on this (while siphoning off their rich cut) !

      • Perhaps software development should be an out-sourced input to academia? The researcher explains what they need the software to do and then the expert provides it?

        I’ve thought that such a system would be very useful for academic statistics too, for quite a while now.

        On the other hand, they’ve tried to introduce such a system for public communications and it hasn’t worked great so far.

      • Moa says: ” I find their software is as bad as the software I used to write two decades ago.” I admire someone that admits that the software they wrote two decades ago was bad.

      • Oh, look, all the usual suspects from XP gospel. Thankfully, you left out pair programming, though you made up for it by tossing in the “Dunning-Kruger Effect.” Each time I see someone using that stupid phrase I know they are just hyperventilating.

      • This is getting a bit like the dodgy dossier. Did Iraq have WMD? well it certainly had had poison gas filled shells.

        Did Iraq have weapons capable of threatening britains direct interests in a 45 minute timescale? Yes, some of the medium range missiles could conceivably target countries that were very British aligned.

        But to conflate the two, to say that Iraq had WMD that were capable of directly affecting Britain’s interests inside a 45 minute delivery time was totally unjustified, but we went to war on that.

        In this case, yes of course academic code can be very buggy. ALL code can be very buggy. That was not my point. The claim is that the bugs made it indeterministic. As ‘Nik’ pointed out, the class of bugs that make code indeterministic exists, but its a very small subset of all the bugs there ever could be, and they are very specialised sorts of bugs.

        Saying academic code is buggy, is a straw man. You cannot conflate merely ‘buggy’ with ‘indeterministic’

  63. Awful and shameful , but in the end perfectly normal for climate ‘science ‘ its been clear for years that the ‘value ‘of research in this area is not judge on its academic validity nor on it meeting the standards of good scientific practice . But on its ‘impact’ in the press and the political area , despite he fact it can dump all these ideals . We have seen a repeated basis that poor practice is both honored and rewarded in this area , its leaders have show themselves to be both poor scientists and good lairs.
    The trouble often is AGW skeptics have been fighting the wrong battle , thinking they could win by ‘outing’ the problems in the science , when they battle field was never in science to begin with, but in another much harder place to fight .

  64. I am truly shocked at this news. I hope that Prince Charles is immediately informed so that he can correct his assertion that there is no pause. I would hate to see him spreading fake news!

    • He He,
      Maybe his illustrious personage will now write the Ladybird Book of Fraud.

      (in longhand – 5,000 times)

    • Ah, the Crown Virtue Signaler ! just like the Hollywood crowd their attempt to make themselves to look non-vacuous makes them look even more vacuous.

      The only English royalty with any grasp of reality seems to be Prince Harry – who is more concerned with defending England and his fellow English than in politically correct posturing or cowardly not commenting on political life (forcing people like Nigel Farage to try bring sanity back to UK policies).

  65. Was there not a recent ‘peer reviewed’ paper that verified Karl et al using the correct methodology for their temp data? I seem to remember Ira Flato on Science Friday making the case that Karl’s numbers were now beyond reproach. If all of Karl’s data was lost, how could the subsequent paper claim the methodology was correct? What of the peer reviewers? What exactly did they do if not just rubber-stamp a political policy paper?

    • Want to read this but link goes to today’s home page (UK version). I know I can do a search but you may be able to do another link to the page?

    • Thanks

      That link worked. A good refresher. I remember at the time prominent alarmists were questioning if Rep. Smith really had a whistleblower contact cuz he was protecting his identity fiercely. I can only presume it was Bates because Rep. Smith’s claims chime with Bate’s claims in this WUWT article.

      Also the NOAA statement in your link says:

      “We have provided data (all of which is publicly available online), supporting scientific research, and multiple in person briefings. We have provided all of the information the Committee, or anyone else, needs to understand, verify, or challenge the paper’s findings.”

      Judging by Bate’s take on it, the NOAA statement can’t be correct.

      Finally, the Judith Curry blog post on this (Feb 4th 17) and linked in this thread looks like a good read, technical, getting to the nub of how the data was treated. I’ve only skimmed it so far which is why I say “looks like” a good read.

    • We are not headed to “1984”, we are in it. Once you understand this then the actions of the media, politicians, UN and Lysenkoists all makes perfect and consistent sense.

      Accept the reality, this has never been about science to the people who initiated the memes. This is about CONTROL of global wealth and the POWER to enforce their will on others.

      • d’you mean ask the “Mann” himself?
        I have a personal Credibility Index, on a scale of zero to minus 20, which I apply to all within my purview. I invite Mann to consider where I might place *himm* after *hiss* hockey-schtick, and various egregious claims since (by my reckoning).
        It wd be interesting to run this Credibility Index Q’aire daily/weekly/monthly for each of the Major Players — on the AGW side and the Skeptical side, and plot a ‘consensus-balance’ from the results. Purely subjective, of course, but since recent times did Objectivity overrule Subjectivity??? (now *there’s* a good Q.!!)
        Post-Truth society and all that entails?? Let Subjectivity be let out of its cage!

    • Another drive-by. I’m starting to doubt you have “deep concerns about human caused global warming”. Methinks thou dost protest too loudly.

      53 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was a swamp. Is it, today, warmer or colder? 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was at 8000 ppm. Why was there not Glow Bull Runaway then?

  66. Um, might want to check that graph up the top. Rose is either incompetent or a fraud. My bet is fraud.

  67. Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science.

    One cannot detect his own stench until he has left the pig sty.

    Seems Dr Bates is trying to come clean. I predict there’s a lot more whistles that will blow.

  68. So what happened to the work started a couple of years go that was supposed to check into the adjusting of temp data? Seems to have evaporated!

  69. Just a note on BBC bias:

    You sent the notification email of this blog post to me at 00:29 UTC this morning, 5th Feb. So this story has been in the public domain since at least that time.

    As of 12:45 UTC there was no mention of it at all on the BBC News website, not the main page nor the Science and Environment page nor the US-tailored page. Zilch.

    Let’s see how long this goes on for. Trump will probably force the BBC’s hand when he mentions it.

    • As we speak Harrabin is frantically calling his rent-a-quote pro-warming, anti-industry scientists to give their biased opinions so that the story will be first presented only in the form of a rebuttal from UK ‘experts’. No doubt ’13 degrees hotter’ Myles Allen will be first on the list.

  70. The Washington Post refused to publish an Op-Ed by Bates last year per Judith Curry:

    “He submitted an earlier, shorter version of this essay to the Washington Post, in response to the 13 December article (climate scientists frantically copying data). The WaPo rejected his op-ed, so he decided to publish at Climate Etc.”

    Corruption or ignorance – it doesn’t matter. This level of failure in our institutions (Free Press, supposed scientific organizations) is astonishing!

    How do we turn this around?

  71. I’ve know John Bates for many years…he spearheaded the archival of long-term satellite datasets at NOAA. As others have pointed out, note that people like him (and me) tend to speak out only after resigning/retiring from government service. Otherwise it’s career suicide.

    [Thank you for your courage, your morality. .mod]

      • Nick, uncalled for and juvenile at best. At worst worthy of a timeout for a few months in my opinion. You have only soiled yourself with that thinly veiled question, and badly.

      • Nick, I am disappointed in you, as you are a smart guy,who has an interesting climate website. But at times you stumble badly that reduces your credibility. Here as in several other threads you go waaaay off the rails,that make many wonder if you are trolling to defend the rapidly dying carnival, the AGW has been.

        Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.

      • Nick: Roy Spencer’s reply to you:

        yes, along with the code. duh.

        And, as I assume your data is archived, when required, you will be as astonished that many of your co-scientists of the alarmist persuasion do not archive theirs. Is that an ethos developed by Michael Mann, I wonder?

      • An interesting counterpoint is to compare the tenor and facts in Karl et al about their new adjustments with Roy Spencer’s description of the adjustments that went into his UAH V6 satellite data. (To be published soon, but Roy had an early version on his web site.) The former read like torturing data, especially buoy data, the latter read like go through all the possibilities before concluding small adjustments are warranted. I.e. real science.

    • I suppose the opposite applies then. If you’re going to retire in 1 year then publish a paper that you will not be dismissed for.

  72. “Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

    Just what skeptics had been saying all along. It’s ironic to be labelled anti-science for merely trying to request a modicum of scientific integrity from taxpayer-funded bodies.

    • That was the main problem, as a matter of principle, with the paper.

      Ship’s data is awful. I have approximately 30 years experience of examining ship’s data and it never fails to amaze.

      I have seen deck logs (with noon figures), engine logs (with noon figures), noon day reports to owners, noon day reports to charterers, and noon day reports to weather routing agencies (which are tracking and guiding the vessel) all saying different things with respect to performance, sea temperatures, currents, weather data, cargo temperature/heating etc. If you get to see the engineer’s diary/personal scrap book, you will usually get to see even more differences. That begs the question, which if any entry is the correct factual scenario?

      Prior to the deployment of buoys there is no reliable SST data, and unfortunately, they even tampered with ARGO. At the outset many buoys showed unexpected cooling. rather than returning a sample of buoys (drawn at random) and returning them to the laboratory for checking/recallibration (if necessary) they simply removed the offending buoys (those showing most cooling) from the data base.

      There may have been reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was an issue with cooling (the reason was sea level rise that suggested warming, not cooling), but to simply disregard and throw out the buoys without checking to see whether there was a real and genuine problem with the equipment could only happen in climate science.

      • Too right Richard. I have frequently seen 2 degree differences between port and starboard seawater injection temps. This difference can be compounded in older ships where injection temps are recorded on a lollipop thermometer in the MSW pipe. The recorder has to look down from athe deckplates from a position that is hardly ever square with the face of the thermometer.

        In most cases, parallax would favor a negative bias over actual gauge pointer position. To illustrate this point, consider what happens to the relative position of a point as we shift our view from a standing 45 dog angle to lying in a position parallel to the selected point. There clowns “data-shopped”, until they found a set produced the desired result.

        Of course, reconciling the biased data with accurate data is problematic, and likely required so many tweeks, as to render the process unfit for public consumption. Data shopping plus input tampering equals results begging for a Hillary-like computer crash.

      • Since the ocean below is colder than the air above is warm, does that make a decline in temperature a sharp spike, which might cause a legitimate reading to get tossed as an outlyer? And is evaporation a smoothing factor on warming? Just wondering if you apply the same banding to both trends you end up with a bias.

      • If Karl was trying to come up with an accurate sea surface temperature dataset, he should have thrown out the inaccurate ship data instead.

        But what he did in ERSST v3b was to throw out the satellite records followed up by throwing out the buoy trends in ERSST v4.

        Does this sound like someone trying to get to an accurate record. Is this what a person in charge of a “National” data centre is supposed to be about. Is that what a person in charge of the world “Climate Data Centre” should be about.

        We HAVE to go in and correct all of the data now. We are going to need forensic statisticians and prosecutors to do a proper job. I imagine there is an oath of integrity that Karl had to sign to be put in charge of so much of the world’s data records.

      • Here is a table giving Limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 for typical industrial gauges as may be found in typical installations. Note that Class 2 accuracy is ±2 deg. C or may even be ±4 deg. C.

        de-de.wika.de/upload/DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf

        How or why anyone could assert that a dataset suitable for scientific purposes to show trends to a precision of three decimal places can be derived from readings taken from such instruments is unclear.

      • Bill Illis,
        We HAVE to go in and correct all of the data now. We are going to need forensic statisticians and prosecutors to do a proper job.

        Well said!

  73. One cannot detect his own stench until he has left the pig sty.

    Seems Dr Bates is trying to come clean. I predict there’s a lot more whistles that will blow.

    Oh, that is so true. I would imagine a lot more is to come. The Climategate emails were the first warning, now with Trump in charge, even current employees can feel safe about telling the truth. The Obama Admin is fond of saying 8 years and no scandals. It is easy to be scandal free when you surround yourself with unethical scoundrels and threaten anyone that dares to speak the truth. That is how the Mob remains scandal free.

    Sooner or later the physics were going to win out anyway, and temperatures were going to start to cool, so it was only a matter of time, but this con was over the moment it started. It was always living on borrowed time. BTW, I’ll watch the Sunday News shows to see it this issue is covered. My bet is the Media will try to stick with the lie.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-is-a-weak-ghg-it-has-no-dipole/

    • Thanks for reminding me, the Milwaukee Journal – Sentinel is probably on the kitchen table down stairs, I’ll have to go take a peak. I know that November 2009 it was a long time, maybe week or so before they ran something on the “Climategate” email drop.

    • Richard, (upthread) I have already read that Nick Stokes says it is (archived). He has also specified its location. I have therefore asked him to replicate the K15 paper. After all, that is what science is all about, no?
      No answer from him yet….

    • Every digital dataset exists somewhere as copies…unless no one ever used it at all, in which case probably no one would miss it.

  74. So many comments–so little time. It’s likely been written above, but it’s worth repeating; if Karl had credible inputs and repeatable results, he would have produced them.

    Failure to produce the goods is tantamount to admitting guilt in shoddy methodology. Of course, this lack of scientific integrity is so commonplace in the climate alarmism community, it will slide under public radar. In reality, Karl’s omission is analogous to a cancer researcher claiming to have discovered (and forgotten) the magic bullet.

    I would gladly sign any petition calling for this clown’s head.

    • ROBR,

      Imagine going to an equity fund meeting to fund your new temp data system.

      Equity Fund – ” Sounds interesting, so let’s have the business plan and data”

      Karl- ” uh , I lost it but you have to believe me”

    • It’s been said elsewhere, but bears repeating here. For many years, the Glow Bull Alarmists have been trying to explain away the pause. (“The warmth is hiding in the deep oceans!”, etc.) Then Karl et. al. comes by and claims there was no pause. Ergo, according to Karl, the Glow Bull Alarmists have no clue.

  75. The first graph is hardly an indictment of Karl et al., the offset is pretty well constant across the entire time sequence; the whole disagreement, I thought, was over removing “the pause”, which would be indicated by a positive trend added to the data, not merely a constant offset.

    • True enough. If you examine other graphs presented in Karl etc al., the compounded effect of the adjustments is much more pronounced in upward bias; most especially in sea surface temps.

  76. OK, on close inspection the offset is about double at the end what it was at the start, but that is not the point the graph’s caption is trying to make!

  77. Dear Mrs Karl,
    Could you please make sure the family dog is secured in future whenever Thomas is doing his homework.
    Thomas’s teacher.

  78. This case is by its nature not a Climategate III (I+II were embarassing email leaks), but a “Karl Bridge Gate”, which is more directly related to scientific manipulation.

    Background:
    The Karl Bridge (Charles Bridge) in Prague, is the historic bridge that crosses the Vltava river in Prague, Czech Republic. Its construction started in 1357 under the auspices of King Charles IV (Karl), and finished in the beginning of the 15th century.The bridge replaced the old Judith (!!!) Bridge built 1158–1172. King Karl forced the local peasants to bring eggs to enforce the mortar. I.e. an obvious parallel to Karl 2015 who seems to have instructed his subordinates to add some eggs to his statistical mix so he could build a stronger bridge between a hiatus and a new constructed warming. Sic!

    • The fly in Karl’s ointment is most likely adjustments to the relative periodic rate given between sw injection temps and bucket temp readings.

  79. New AG Sessions has a lot of legal messes to clean up on his plate, but I hope he can make time to prosecute climate criminals from NASA, NOAA, the EPA and other federal offenders.

    • Well, that article is proven to be untrue in section1.

      It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout.

      However, the data was not archived and it has now been lost. This paper (and therefore the other linked papers by Victor Venema and Zeke Hausfather) cannot be reproduced.

      This is not best practice.

      It looks like you have found one of the first “Not me Guv, I’m innocent” reports. We can all see why people involved in this would want to play down the failings of this process.
      But he’s going down too.

      Interestingly, this is a good litmus test. People who care more about defending irreproducible “science” than they care about what the temperature is really doing are clearly not interested
      Pseudoscientists.

      I will read more of your link to see if there are other “fake facts”.

    • Here’s a good one.

      4. ‘The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified’
      The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto.

      Not many buoys or ships are used for land data. Funny how he doesn’t mention surface data.
      Almost as if he knows where the bodies are buried (like we all do) but is trying to misdirect the readers.

      Naughty. Naughty. Naughty.

    • Whether the ships are matched to buoys or buoys matched to ships will not affect the trend.

      That would be true if the number of boats and buoys remains constant or vary in exactly the same proportion.

      But the author must know that’s not so.
      Hmm.

      • And on the same subject:

        6. ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]’
        v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.

        But that author has already acknowledged that one was prioritised over the other to make the adjustment. It’s not ignorance. He knows.

        And which one was prioritised? The ships.

        They had unadulterated data from buoys and they threw it out. That data was replaced with modified data that had been influenced by the ship data.

    • lol Tom Dayton!

      “Peter Thorne who unlike Bates was directly (ACCUSED) with the people and many processes of the data and processing.”.

      There, fixed it for you.

  80. I feel sorry for Mosher and Stokes too. All these years of building up their Devoted Warmist Merit Badge collections, only to be undone by someone with a big mouth.

    Andrew

    • It looks like Mosher has had the sense to make a strategic withdrawal after the direct quotes from the paper which contradicted him. Stokes just doesn’t seem to be able to help himself. The big mouth which brings him undone is his own, then he wants to argue about whether he has brought himself undone because look over there.

  81. Re the NOAA/HadCRUT4 comparison chart, David Rose says:

    “…the UK Met Office’s independently tested and verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record [shows] lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend”
    ________________________

    As has been pointed out previously, the main visual difference between the two series in this chart is a result of the fact that NOAA and HadCRUT use different anomaly base periods and David Rose has made no attempt to set them on a like-for-like scale.

    The “recent warming trend” in HadCRUT4 (since 1997 – the period shown on the chart) is 0.133 ±0.101 °C/decade, while that in NOAA is 0.159 ±0.095 °C/decade. So the ‘best estimate’ difference between the two is just 0.026 °C/decade, which is more than covered by the error margins: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    Also, note that the best estimate trend in each case is higher than its 95% confidence error margin, meaning that the warming since 1997 in both NOAA and HadCRUT is statistically significant. So even NOAA didn’t exist, HadCRUT4 (and all the other surface temperature data producers) would still indicate statistically significant warming since 1997.

    • That’s right. They’re all equally in on the conspiracy, as shown so graphically by the Climategate emails.

      • What is the likelihood that i) any one particular global surface temperature data producer is engaged in a conspiracy to inflate recent warming, and ii) that all 5 major global surface temperature data producers are engaged in more or less exactly the same conspiracy?

  82. Nick Stokes and others here demonstrate how easily the climate believers will deal with this.
    Draw the attention away from Dr. Bates whistleblowing and on to the inaccuracies in the Rose article.
    Paint the article as “more fake news from well known climate denier”, and the climate faithful will never read beyond the fake news headline (repeated by MSM) and Bates will just be assumed to be part of the fake news hoax…

    • What exactly is Dr Bates stating that’s supposed to be so controversial? That one of the computer’s used to process the data failed?

      • Read the article at CE. Software bugs in land data. Review procedures not followed, Information Quality Act violated, internal objections overruled. Proof from the inside of politicized climate ‘science’.

    • I think you’ll find that it is not the opinions of the climate believers that matter, it is those of Myron Ebell and Lamarr Smith.

      They will not acquire their information from the Daily Mail, they will acquire it directly from Dr. Bates personally.

      And then they will report their findings to President Trump…

    • There is no helping the Climate Glow Bull Alarmist believers. And, not in the way you might read that sentence.

      It’s over. Trump will shut off all funding to fake science. It’s over for them. They will retire, of find other ways to fleece, of find honest jobs. The meme is dead.

  83. Bombshell this isn’t.

    and anything associated with David Rose is suspect.

    Here’s a factcheck of the David rose piece:
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

    “In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.

    What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.”

    • Misses the point that failing to follow approved methodology to rush a paper out before a Climate Conference in Paris is… Not Science.

      It is advocacy pretending to be science.

      You may well be correct though when you imply that this has influenced later work. The fake science will have spread as all the homogenisation techniques are calibrated against each other.

      But that just shows why science should be disinterested.
      Knowing the answer you want means you will get the answer you want.

    • Pure nonsense. What part of the fact the data was not archived did you miss? How can they validate something without the data? What they did is cherry pick other data sources and then lied that it verified the Karl paper.

    • Griff, you say:

      What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.”

      Yet, it seems that K15 is incapable of being replicated based on ts data and code. What do you know that no-one else does?

      BTW: I can agree with you that Rose is wrong in hoos assertion that – “World Leaders were duped….”. They weren’t, were they? They were all in on the act. They needed the scare of AGW like you need CO2 to live.

    • Hi Griff,

      If police fail to follow proper procedure to get a necessary search warrant … what is likely to happen (hint: a criminal has a better chance of going free until UNTAINTED evidence is collected — “fruit of the poisonous tree” and all that)?

      If Karl et al. fail to follow proper procedure to get their data reviewed … what should happen (hint: it should involve immediate investigation / disciplinary actions, but I haven’t seen that)?

      Scientists in specialized disciplines like climate have expertise, but not are not granted some special authority to “fudge” the process, EVEN IF they have sufficient expertise. They all need to (on both sides of this issue) follow the same review procedures to minimize questions like the ones presented in the article by Rose.

      And EVEN IF the article were entirely bogus (doesn’t seem to be), it presented procedural questions that “should” be answered BY the NOAA with “We are 100% confident that Karl et al. followed all required scientific policies and review processes … and we stand behind these findings as presented.”

      Then, someone can challenge those findings if they can present better evidence or dare I say it, a better data model entirely. I haven’t seen that happen either, instead I’ve seen a politicized environment (pun intended) that is obscurantist at best.

    • Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford yet, you skanky little liar?

      And rest assured it is indeed a bombshell, coming as it does when President Trump has got his sights firmly lned up with NOAA.

    • Oh look, another squirrel. Laughable article. The claimed verification by BEST has been shown to be nothing but cherry picking. If that’s the “best” you have, you have nothing. The chart Rose used is not even relevant to the issue. The paper was pushed forward for political reasons and ignored NOAA’s own internal policies. It was also based on adjusting good data using bad data. Try to keep up.

    • Exactly as I predicted earlier
      Focused on Rose as climate denier, posting fake news in his article.
      Meanwhile the real story is buried.
      Not one mention of Dr.Bates in this or the earlier arcticle griff points to.
      The climate faithfull will never even know of Bates’ whistleblowing

      • “The climate faithfull will never even know of Bates’ whistleblowing”

        IF and when they check Drudge today (AND the opposition DOES check Drudge) they will see it today …

    • Griff climbs so far up his own arse that if he wanted anyone (whom?) to find him, he’d have to paint the soles of his feet white to assist in said rescue.

      • Oh, and the Daily Mail is a paragon of accurate reporting? Please – it’s a tabloid. Here’s the top story from today’s online edition: “Sealed with an ‘H’? Meghan Markle makes a bold declaration of her love for Prince Harry as she wears a ring with his initial while shopping for flowers in London”

        Haha, yup, there’s some serious journalism being practiced there!

    • Quoting that rag exposes Griff as a wishful manipulator of data. But that rag doesn’t have any data, so no manipulation of real data can occur.

  84. “…we should have war crimes trials for these bastards-some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Irony.

  85. If you speak out after you retire you are no longer a whistleblower. The real and necessary courage is speaking out while on the job. It is why they have laws to protect whistleblowers. The fact that you need them, in a supposedly open democratic society, succinctly says you don’t have one.

    Bates is bailing because of the regime change. If Hillary had been elected he would not be saying anything.

      • There is no ship for the rats to jump from. Trump will expose the timbers of the supposed ship to be devoid of substance.

    • Unfortunately, laws have the effect of being just a formality, when you see the same potentially hostile people day in and day out who could make your life miserable in more subtle ways than the subtleties of the law could account for. Someone to enforce the law is not present every second of every day in the exact proximity of physical associations required for carrying out daily tasks of work, week after week under a sinister glare.

    • Dr. Ball,

      It seems Dr. Bates took his “40 years and out” option BEFORE there
      was a regime change or that it was obvious there would be one after
      our last Presidential election.

      If he was, in fact, passing along information to Representative Smith
      before the election but still on the NOAA payroll, that qualifies him as
      as whistleblower. He simply dodged the sharp rocks by retiring.

      Some few retired bureaucrats and University Professors seem
      emboldened to speak out once they’ve retired from their secure
      positions… don’t you/they?

  86. The Daily Mail is dishonest shock!
    Not quite as newsworthy as that NOAA is dishonest.

    Keep your eye on the ball. The Daily Mail won’t cause major policy changes through fake news.
    NOAA does.

  87. It has been fun to watch this play out here and over at Climate Etc. The usual suspects trying to defend the indefensible. NOAA stonewalled Rep. Smith’s subpoena. Now we know why. Emails will have Holdrens WH fingerprints on them; Karl and Holdren have been close acquaintances for many years. This was explicitly rushed out for Obama for COP21 in Paris. Going to be serious consequences when that gets shown, with the new sheriff in the WH.
    Will be interesting to see what Science does, as the paper now provably violates their written requirements for publication.

  88. It is time to close all these national weather agencies and replace them with an agency that only collects data. If private weather forecasting companies want to form they will sink or swim on the accuracy and usefulness of their forecasts based on that data. As it is now, the national weather agencies are consistently wrong but continue to get funded.

    • I disagree. Large scale science that benefits lots of people a very small amount is clearly something that the State should do. It prevents a market failure.

      No group benefits enough to fund the science because if free loaders. So no-one does.

      Being consistently wrong would put any firm out of business. That way we will never get any better as we won’t do it at all.

      • Tim is right. I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Turn the government agencies into collectors of data. Their only standards would be accuracy and efficiency. This would eliminate the political bias from the process. With the “science” and the “data collection” tangled up together, there is no way to validate either if (when!) someone has their thumb in the scales.

        Take the same money that is now squandered doing “science” and offer it up as contracts or prizes to competing companies, with the promise of even more lucrative contracts or prizes for high quality results.

        If you turned government’s roll into that of a collector and indexer of data, and then offered a $1 Billion prize for the climate model proven to be most accurate in the next 10 years, you’d have a dozen of them popping up in the private sector, and the WORST of them would still be better than the dreck produced now. The private sector would spend (collectively) considerably more than $1 billion trying to win that prize, and since their ONLY metric would be accuracy (I’m assuming proper metrics established in advance of course) you would eliminate the social justice warrior mentality from the science ranks trying to prove their assertion based on a quasi religious belief that even if they are wrong they are doing the right thing for the planet, and so it is OK to have their thumb on the scale.

        The free market viciously destroys weak products. Which is precisely why climate models should be produced by the free market. Lots of companies could build accurate climate models. Few could collect the data. The government should be an enabler by collecting the data and making it available as a product for the consumption by free enterprise which will figure out how to produce accurate results, or die trying.

    • The armed forces at least need WX forecasters.

      Our WX ships off Greenland were able to let Ike know he had a WX window on June 6, 1944, which the Germans didn’t know about.

      The late, great Reid Bryson, Father of Climatology, was a WWII US Navy weatherman who twice warned ADM Halsey about coming typhoons, which advice he ignored both times, with loss of life. Bryson later famously said that you would have more affect on climate by spitting on the sidewalk than by doubling CO2.

    • Or at the very least, separate the data gathering agencies from all the government users. And publish their unadulterated data daily.

  89. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming => Global Warming

    Semantic creep.

    Furthermore, it’s a conflation of logical domains to predict system behavior outside of a limited frame of reference in both time and space, that is not only assumed but known to be incompletely characterized and unwieldy. It is inappropriate to substitute models (i.e. hypotheses) for observation and reproduction. It is inappropriate to extrapolate from limited, circumstantial data, especially that acquired in isolation (e.g. laboratory), to global proportions. It is inappropriate to replace deduction with inference (i.e. created knowledge) in the scientific method, where the latter is more correctly employed to gain insight in the philosophical domain. It is inappropriate to assume risk when there is evidence of benefit. It is inappropriate to assume a process is progressive (i.e. monotonic change) when the system is in fact chaotic (thus the need for a scientific logical domain) with large variance, and both natural and anthropogenic tempering factors.

  90. Way, way too many indoctrinated and brain washed people that won’t believe this.

    They seem to have a strange disorder that humans are somehow destroying the planter at every turn. They feel we (and themselves) must be punished for our transgressions.

    Most of them have been feed this false story since they were kids by people they were told they must respect and believe.

    • With Trump defunding fake science, the source of some of the fake news will disappear.

      The times, they are achanging.

  91. Prior to the publication of his highly criticized 2015 paper that made the the nearly two-decade-long pause in global temperatures ‘disappear’ (by adjusting sea surface temperature data – cooling the past and warming the present), NOAA’s Karl was quoted saying (2012) that NOAA’s surface temperature trends should show the “same kind of a trend” as satellite temperatures do.

    The agreement between NOAA surface instrumental data and satellite data would indicate that the temperature trend is fact, and not an assertion (his word choices).

    However, with the adjustments to the data, the satellite records do not show the “same kind of a trend” as the NASA (NOAA) records do:

    • kenneth_richard on February 5, 2017 at 11:57 am

      However, with the adjustments to the data…

      I’m afraid you are here the “adjuster in chief”. Simply because usually nobody compares global satellite data with land surface data or the inverse. Either all global or all land.

      Moreover, comparing satellite with surface starting with 1998 is quite a bit flawed due to the two harsh satellite peaks in feb/apr 1998.

      That effect you of course only see when you bring the anomaly baselines to a common period (here: UAH, 1981-2010):

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.431/plot/uah6/from:1999/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.091/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.293/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.431/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.091/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.293

      • I understand you have an issue with starting the trend in 1998, but apparently you didn’t realize that the Karl et al. (2015) pause-busting paper in question here starts in 1998. This is the very reason why that particular year was chosen.

        Furthermore, in their discussions of the “hiatus” from warming in the most recent IPCC report, the start year for the hiatus is, once again, 1998.

        So why did you decide to cherry-pick the year 1999 as your starting point when no one has ever suggested the pause/hiatus started in 1999?

        And I fail to see what is the problem with comparing the GIStemp to the RSS plot other than you don’t like how it is evident that the GIStemp adds an additional 0.2+ C of warming relative to the RSS non-trend for 1998-2016:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016

      • kenneth_richard on February 5, 2017 at 10:43 pm

        My apologies for answering so late to your reply.

        I never would speak about pauses in time series ranges starting with a huge value, as this automatically lowers trends. But I agree: you wanted to put your comment in relation with Karl’s video. That’s OK.

        I have reread http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full
        and everything in it is OK for me. I have no problem with that paper, as it shows that two different institutions (NOAA, HadCRUT) got similar results concerning two points:
        – the discrepancy between buoys and ships
        – the understimate warming in the Arctic.

        So it’s evident that our meanings differ. That’s life…

        All in all: my opinion is that the best base for a sound discussion is to show trends in time series where ENSO and volcano signals have been extracted.

        See e.g. Santer et al. 2014, who computed for RSS3.3 TLT a residual warming of 0.085 °C / dec in 1979-2016): https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054

        P.S. A little hint on your use of GISTEMP land in the trend line: land data shows always higher trends than land+ocean, as ocean is cooler.

        RSS 3.3 TLT land has a trend of 0.178 °C / dec opposed to 0.135 for RSS Globe in 1979-2016
        UAH6.6 TLT land has 0.167 °C / dec opposed to 0.124 for UAH Globe

        The same holds for GISTEMP land having 0.203 °C / dec opposed to 0.174 for LOTI.

    • kenneth_richard

      Entering a “To (time)” date of 2016 in the WoodforTrees database means you only get data up to December 2015. So your chart does not include the very high temperatures seen in RSS in 2016, nor does it show that the trend in RSS TLT 3.3 since 2008 (to Jan 2017) is now upward (+0.01 C/dec), out of the picture: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

      Also, RSS advise that their TLT3.3 data set contains a known cooling bias which has yet to be corrected for; so even aside from the fact that GISS and RSS measure 2 different things, any comparison using RSS TLT 3.3 is inappropriate.

      • “Entering a “To (time)” date of 2016 in the WoodforTrees database means you only get data up to December 2015.”

        Correct. And the Karl et al. (2015) paper, which, again, is the subject of this article, only includes data from 1998 through 2015 too, which is precisely why I chose to extend it to December 2015 only (2016). The NOAA data adds 0.2+ C of unaccounted-for warming to the 1998-2016 pause that exists in the satellite record. For some reason, you are wanting to choose different years (1999?) than what are used in the Karl paper. Why not use the same years Karl and co-authors did and compare the satellites to NOAA for those years? Do you just not like what you see?

        “any comparison using RSS TLT 3.3 is inappropriate”

        So then why does Karl himself say in 2012 (the youtube video above) that the means by which the NOAA data are affirmed as “fact” vs. “assertion” is by seeing if the NOAA and satellite data show “the same kind of trend”? (They don’t. NOAA has added more than 0.2 C to the 1998-2016 trend.) If satellites are so “inappropriate” to compare the NOAA data, wouldn’t Karl be distancing himself from them rather than affirming them?

  92. Why?
    In the Great Big Picture, how did this whole charade come about?

    Would it be fair to suggest Karl and his cohorts are members of a generation that have, since early childhood, effectively been spoilt? They’ve been repeatedly told how clever they are, how beautiful, lovely and attractive they are and they’ve gone through school & college system that reinforced that. Eventually they got into ‘Public Service’, again an atmosphere of total and political correctness and where if they do do anything wrong, The System will look after them.

    Then roll on to them telling their own children that sort of junk and a media, especially movies, full of superhereoes, from Superman himself, thro Star Trek, Indiana Jones, John Wayne etc etc.
    But see how almost all the modern heroes, in order to stop the runaway train, defuse the atomic device or generally save The World – they all tend to do something a little bit ‘against the rules’
    They shoot when told not to, they go when told to stop, they cut the red wire instead of the blue one and invariably this little bit of well intentioned disobedience is what saves the day/world/children/city/whatever.

    And is this not exactly what Karl has done? Broke the rules in a well intentioned plan to ‘Save The World’
    Especially just before his retirement and an important (aren’t they all?) COP in Paris.
    His way of going out in a blaze of glory, of leaving a legacy.

    And all his upbringing, can’t do wrong, so clever, so intelligent, egged on subconsciously by the media and on top of that, half his brain effectively switched off by a poor diet. The same poor diet most people are now on.

    Karl is not the first, will not be the last and one day, one of these brain-washed and brain-dead folks is really gonna blow it. Just look at 0bama for a start.
    Global Warming Climate Change is symptomatic of a much greater malaise.

    • Can’t remember the last time I saw a movie where the well-intentioned heroes fudge the rules, cause a total disaster, and catch hell for it. And I don’t mean just a stern lecture from a stuffy authority figure, or a temporary punishment that’s always rescinded after they turn out to be right. I mean real, lasting consequences that personally affect them, where even if they were right, their indulgence in going a little rogue has come back to bite them, hard.

      But that kind of story wouldn’t sell many tickets at the box office nowadays.

  93. AGU President Eric Davidson defends: CLIMATE SCIENCE & DATA MANAGEMENT

    U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology issued a misleading press release. These types of statements by policymakers that attempt to take one study/dispute and blow it out of proportion are both unhelpful and misleading. We will be working with the science committee to demonstrate the scientific consensus on climate change and to encourage them not to interfere with the scientific process. . . .
    I also want you to know that, while climate science knowledge is evolving, these reports do not change our fundamental understanding of climate change. The Karl study updated the NOAA global temperature record, but there have been many other studies, using other, independent global temperature records, that have improved our understanding of the climate system and anthropogenic climate change since then. For example, all independent records now show that the past two years were the warmest years on record.

    • Excellent. Means this is causing real warmunist damage, even on Super Sunday. AGU’s problem (and maybe Davidson does not know this) is that the rest of the consensus is as rotten to the core. Falsified models. No accelerating SLR. Multiple provable cases of academic misconduct in Science and the Nature stable of papers. Polar bears. On, and on. Never bring a rubber knife to a gunfight. And now we got a real gunfight with ‘bullets’ flying.

  94. What is it, exactly, with scientists who publish claimed results and then allow the supporting data to be disappeared? This has been an ongoing problem. Do we need a national repository for data to be deposited BEFORE a paper may be published which is based on that data?

  95. No doubt the “Old Girls CEO Clubs” in D.C. including AGU, AMS and AAAS will pool their membership money to hire a killer to murder Dr. Bates.

  96. I have a question for Bindidon

    With your graph of the three data sets excluding the temporary rise due to the last el nino, it appears clear there is a pause starting around 2000-2001. Can you comment on this please

    • Bindidon is not aware that Hadcrut also adjusted it’s data to fit with the Karlization of temperatures. When I coined the term ‘Karlization’ shortly after the felony in June 2015, here on WUWT it caught on for a while, but in this giant expose it appears to have died out. My ‘gang green’ didn’t become a keeper either. No more poetry for me!

    • RobW on February 5, 2017 at 12:38 pm

      Sorry RobW for the late answer. The comment couldn’t be more simple: it is a pause, not more, not less.

      My only problem is: why does everybody look at this pause but ignores all others since the very beginning of temperature measurements?

    • Gary Pearse on February 5, 2017 at 6:41 pm

      Bindidon is not aware that Hadcrut also adjusted it’s data to fit with the Karlization of temperatures.

      The problem with people like Gary Pearse is that they all pretend things instead of writing valuable arguments and showing verifiable data.

      With tihs comment, Gary Pearse, you confirm that you know neither about HadCRUT nor even about what is really behind “Karlisation”.

      I have no problem with that.

    • That’s it Mosher? That’s the best you have to offer from gang green?

      Two questions:
      1. Above you quoted “The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed,”

      You then wrote “Problem. They never argued this.” Do you now accept that you were wrong?

      2. Do you see anything Karl and the team did as being in any way questionable with respect to timing, motive, procedure, cooperation with the senate inquiry? Or is it what you regard as the gold standard for climate science.

      As somebody wrote above, please do answer!

  97. If Rep. Smith reissues his subpoena for emails its a fair bet that the new administration will comply. Wonder where the Karl emails would be now. And has a data and commincations preservation order been issued. Dr. Bates begins his article by noting the hyporacsey of scientists expressing concern about data security. Some speaking out may be very busy cleaning up their tracks.

    • The,preserve records order to NOAA was issued prior to the Subpoena. And as the committee’s website made clear earlier today, that subpoena has not been withdrawn. A lot of action from Congress on SuperSunday. Implies much more to come.

  98. First, NOAA’s Thomas R Karl (Director NCEI/NCDC) calls himself a scientist and second, he is the lead author of the paper ‘Karl et al Science Magazine 2015′.

    My assessment of NOAA’s Karl in creating Karl et al 2015 is that Karl has created a piece of pseudo-science. My assessment of Karl being a pseudo-scientist while creating Karl et al 2015 is based on John Bates’ investigations of Karl’s efforts to create Karl et al 2015. Bates says his investigation of Karl was conducted by himself while he was an employee at NOAA (since then he retired in November 2016).

    Pseudo-science is simply to masquerade as science purposely to receive all the benefits of scientific trust. Noble laureate Feynman talked about the nature of pseudo-science in his ‘Cargo Cult Science’ essay.

    Science work products can honestly be wrong or bad. Pseudo-science has intent to hide non-scientific behavior while purposely giving the outside appearance of scientific behavior.

    John

  99. I somehow doubt this will be taken up by the mainstream media. If not it’s another nail in their coffin. I know of many people who doubt the MSM yet, because of its availability, still watch it. Perhaps the MSM thus believes they can be trusted though many doubting Thomases link to them simply for convenience or availability (they do cover a lot of stories where their narrative can be useful such as the nefarious actions of Putin or Kim of North Korea).

  100. MOD, Is this a “top post”? I’m OK with that but I noticed another later post under under it.
    Usually a “Top Post” is announced as such.
    (Maybe I was still “on” when the transition was made?)

  101. Hello ristvan,
    What is this SuperSunday you refer to?
    Seriously. I’m British and honestly don’t know what this is.
    Is it a media thing or a constitutional thing, post-inauguration?

    • American Football.
      Tonight the best two of the US’s professional football teams will play against each other. The ‘Super Bowl”.
      (I assume ristrvan wasn’t referring to the rerun marathons of old shows all the other channels will be airing.)

      • “Comet” channel is running a marathon of “Mystery Science Theater 3000!”
        (Probably would have been called a “webinar” under Obama’s team.)

      • Animal Planet has run their Puppy Bowl concurrently with the Super Bowl for 13 years running, complete with a Kitten Halftime Show. While the little guys obviously have no idea how to play American football, the game isn’t really the point (all of the participants are available for adoption).

    • That should be referring to the last game of the American pro football season, called the Super Bowl. (Number 51 this year.) Its the day American males actually go to the grocery stores to stock up on beer, chicken wings, beer, snacks, beer, and pizza. The game starts at 1830 EST, less than an hour from now.

      The US crime rate measurably drops during the game, then “fans” supporting both the winners and losers may wind up rioting and generally trashing the area. Others are in bed before it ends. Still others tune just for the commercials.

  102. As an observer it seems that the modern scientific method is to
    A. Find the answer you want
    B. Find a way to produce it
    C. Apply for huge funding to keep proving your answer is correct.
    D. Make sure it cannot be tested by a third party by “losing the data”

    • A critical correction.
      You said,
      “A. Find the answer you want”

      Make that,
      “A. Find the answer they want”
      Then C and D are assured.
      (No need to expend much effort on B. Charts to the MSM would suffice. If it looks like a dropped hockey stick, then only one is needed.)

      • “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
        – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

  103. We can split up the dishonest from the duped by what they say after this revelation. Some have already (unwisely) shown their colours.

  104. Let’s look at the totality:
    The “science” of Anthropogenic Warming Studies” has been totally discredited by Climate-Gate and now NOAA-Gate. The jig is up!
    No-one with 1/2 a brain (except the brainwashed and/or conniving and Clown Prince Charley-boy) believes these Snake-Oil Sales(wo)men any longer. They have thrown their lot in with the politicians to access funding. ‘He who pays the Piper, Calls the Tune!” As to credibility, BAD MOVE! — who believes politicians any more in this Post-Truth Society. And so, who believes sycophantic, sinecure-seeking, ‘data-mannipulating’, so-called Climate Scientists any more? What makes your version of “Truth” believeable? Nothing, whatever you say, ‘cos we proles see “Truth” as self-serving ‘shifting-sand’ to suit the manta-of-the-week/day/hour.
    GET THE MESSAGE?? YOUR CREDIBILITY IS TOTALLY SHOT, and you are no longer believable or relevant or worth MY TAX-PAYER’S MONEY.

  105. A quick glance at this post suggests that David Rose has produced yet another embarrassing (for CAGW sceptics) contribution to the climate change debate. Nothing has been presented which refutes Karl et al.
    Whether or not there are technicalities regarding a failure to archive data, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

    From the graph showing plots of the “flawed” data and “verified” data it’s pretty obvious that the trends are virtually identical. It just looks as though the 2 plots are using anomalies based on a different time period. Indeed I now notice that Bindidon and Nick Stokes have made this same point in above comments.

    For crying out loud – can we please stop grabbing at every meaningless piece of trumped up nonsense to support the case against CAGW. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.

    • From the Karl et al. Abstract: ‘… here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature’.
      The NCDC anomaly graph shows the result, from ‘slowdown’ no ‘slowdown’:

      I think the fuss is all about how and when this all came about.

    • To me the most interesting part of the defence by gang green is that the graph Rose used uses two different anomaly bases. In fact Rose really let gang green off the hook by doing so because if the graphs were aligned to allow for the different anomaly bases the clearly show that Karl did just enough to smooth the graphs so that the pause disappeared.

      That result was precisely what gang green required and Karl delivered it exactly when it was most needed. In doing so he did what was necessary by the way of breaches of protocols and irreproducible adjustments. Then he refused to comply with a senate inquiry subpoena. Not a smart thing to do unless you think that the next president will continue the cover up.

      Who knows, the end result of the anomaly shifting might be to revive the astonishing blunder by NASA where they announced that the hottest year evah was in fact a couple of degrees cooler than before the anomaly base was shifted. That blunder remains hidden in plain view.

      So, what’s the take home message? For gang green it is that their shabby practices have been exposed yet again and at the worst possible time for them.

    • John Finn on February 5, 2017 at 4:30 pm

      It just looks as though the 2 plots are using anomalies based on a different time period.

      Exactly.

      But that’s an insignificant detail in comparison with the paper written by Hausfather & alii:
      http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

      A bit hard to read, I agree, but at the end you understand that Bates’ critique on project data management and Rose’s bare propaganda both don’t have anything in common with science.

  106. I’ve been out looking around a little. The other side (there is one) is busy generating a counterattack. If “past is prologue” we can expect the MSM to follow that lead. But it may not work so well this time. The current administration is packed with skeptics from top down. They now have the levers of power which were previously held by extreme warmists. I’m sure our friends around the world have seen a willingness to pull those levers that has not existed since the Reagan administration. Actually Reagan was tame compared to these people. Doctors Bates and Curry have handed us a powerful light. This administration and Congress will use it.