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
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.
Different results if it uses any randomise function.
Different results if it uses multithreading to process huge data sets.
http://www.ocoudert.com/blog/2011/05/30/how-to-make-software-deterministic/
Very good summary, Nik*, but would any of those features be present in a program to analyse temperature data?
* http://www.ocoudert.com/blog/2011/05/30/how-to-make-software-deterministic/
Much of academic code is written in Fortran. If you don’t specify zero initialization you don’t get it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.6/g77/Variables-Assumed-To-Be-Zero.html
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.
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’
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 .
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)
He is himself Fake News. With another son Elizabeth would have already resigned.
The Royals are an endangered species. At least Her Majesty realises that and knows when to STFU.
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).
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?
Excellent questions, Mac.
This was always waiting to blow-
“Congressman claims NOAA whistleblowers told him climate study was …
https://arstechnica.com/…/congressman-claims-noaa-whistleblowers-told-…
19 Nov 2015 – NOAA denies the study was hurried for political reasons”
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?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/congressman-claims-noaa-whistleblowers-told-him-climate-study-was-rushed/
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.
Anyone doubt Bates has deep concerns about human caused global warming?
No, Bates has deep concerns about human-caused corruption of the scientific method.
You take a vote on it and see whether you can get a 97% consensus — or you could just ask the man himself.
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?
…both poor scientists and good lairs.
Good lairs, as in “Tony Blair.”
Um, might want to check that graph up the top. Rose is either incompetent or a fraud. My bet is fraud.
Which are you?
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.
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!
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.
He’s got Bob Ward on speed-dial!
BBC lying by omission. Standard practice and they do it all the time.
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?
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]
“he spearheaded the archival of long-term satellite datasets at NOAA.”
Are yours archived?
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.
yes, along with the code. duh.
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:
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?
Nick rides himself hard.
========
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.
Roy Spencer,
Thanks.
Take care.
John
“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.
This was the fundamental flaw in the paper, not to get good data but to get consistent, homogised data.
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.
Bill Illis
+1
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!
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.
Nothing in today’s paper – I’m not surprised.
Thanks for the comment.
Looks like NOAAGate is upon us.
Richard M
Perhaps followed by a GISS warmergate?
John
No more gates are necessary. Trump will shut off all funding to fake science. The Glow Bull warming meme is dead.
Are not all computer systems regularly backed up?
How can this data not be archived?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Thank you for speaking out Dr. Bates.
Dear Mrs Karl,
Could you please make sure the family dog is secured in future whenever Thomas is doing his homework.
Thomas’s teacher.
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.
You have to break a lot of bridges in order to burn an omelette.
===============
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.
I am sure that AG Sessions knows the value of delegation.
Yes, but resources are not unlimited. I didn’t mean the AG himself, but the DoJ.
I’d be surprised if anyone from NASA or NOAA be prosecuted.
Detailed, point by point rebuttal of Rose’s claims, by Peter Thorne who (unlike Bates) was directly involved with the people and many processes of the data and processing: http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.de/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Well, that article is proven to be untrue in section1.
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.
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.
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:
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.