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.
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.
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.
…
…
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.’
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
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.
Tim:
Better late than never?
Didn’t want to lose his job?
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.
Absolutely no point under the Obama Admin.
“computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure”
Complete failure? By what, A sledge hammer?
Maybe they wiped it . . like with a cloth or something. 😉
Heh….
What was it the Hillary used ??
Oh, yes.
The BleachBit people actually sell “Cloth or Something” for $3.00, or the autographed version for $5.00.
Hilarious.
http://www.bleachbit.org/cloth-or-something
The CIA must examine the remains forensically to see if anything can be retrieved from the hard drive.
The results would cast a spotlight on the methods used, which may help others sort out the flaws in homogenisation that may not be self evident to other Bureaux of Meteorology.
Wikileaks?
Professor Jones’ dog ate the hard disk?
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. !!!!
Raven, I love it when a company is willing to show a sense of humor.
Popcorn…margaritas…honest and bravery…speaking out against group-think! PERFECT!
Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is hiding out? Where?
John
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.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3aZgFvUJa0
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
Gavin may be hiding out with Uma.
I think we should search behind a big stack of emails.
‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
Since when has an order been up for discussion?
Schmidt is hiding behind the decline.
Liars, cheats and frauds infest the climate gravy train here, there and everywhere.
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.
Wow!!!! I am really shocked !!! ( sarc) .
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!
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.
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.
We came that close to total disaster.
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:
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.
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?
Repealed, but never declared unconstitutional, so it’s an ideal precedent. Trump’s EO is mild by comparison. Congress can overrule him if it wants.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 was alos part of the A&SA package:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798
The man who shot Liberty Karl,
He was the bravest of them all.
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.
these people were in place long before obama.
But not for long after Trump. The EPA, EIA, GISS, now NOAA. Draining the swamp means getting rid of swamp critters.
Once the funding spigot gets turned off, the critters will go away. (Probably to go find some other teat to milk..)
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)
Schmidt’s TED talk and transcript here: https://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change/transcript?language=en
The word “artful” does not appear once.
‘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.
Which changes the claim of a “complete failure” by precisely zero.
“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.
“It makes no difference to the story.”
There is no story. No one has seriously said that results can’;t be replicated.
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.
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… !
Everyone who has fallen for the global warming mime, all those who are “believers”, are more than willing to look the other way and actually cheer on all this “data manipulation”. They are part of it.
Mosher is doing the “data management” at Berkeley Earth!!!
I wouldn’t buy a used car from Mosher, let alone scientific data. !!
Best is a non-profit, NOT linked to Berkley Uni. Run by a RABID AGW priestess. (Muller’s daughter)
In 2013 they got half a million dollars from “somewhere”
http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/CA/Berkeley-Earth-Inc.html
Remember when we thought the Climategate emails were going to make a difference? They didn’t and this won’t either.
Oh, I dunno, Bruckner. Remember who was president of the U.S. in 2009?….
Bingo +wins the prize!
Aw, Goldminor whose family has such a fine San Francisco restaurant — thanks. That was generous of you.
Unlike last time, there is a US president who wants to hear this stuff!
“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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/us/20storm.html
“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.
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.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/02/drose.png
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.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/02/drose1.png
” 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.
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…
I’ll bet you pretend HADCRUT and NOAA are independent as well, lol.
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?
So, point us to the NOAA backups you say they made. Thanks.
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.
Again, Bates didn’t say that. He said someone made a joke about it.
So you’re not a silly goose. You’re the Cheshire Cat.
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.
Data and code are of course routinely backed up
Good to know. Now, can you produce the data and code used in Karl15?
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. !!!!
What do you think about all this Griff?
Griff is hiding behind that pile of emails with Uma and Gavin Shit (is that the correct spelling?).
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.
and 27% of the actual temp data is from Urban areas that the WMO flag us as having zero quality.
“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.
“defending the indefensible”. That’s the purpose of a majority of Nick’s posts.
“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.