Skip to content

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

February 5, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#reader-comments 

 

To those of us who have been following the story of Thomas Karl’s pausebuster paper two years ago, this will come as no surprise.

However, David Rose has now brought it to the public’s attention. Just as significantly, one of NOAA’s top scientists, until he retired recently, has come forward with an absolutely damning expose of how Karl broke all the rules to rush out his highly flawed paper:

 

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.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, US President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the world climate change conference

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, US President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the world climate change conference

The PM, the Prince and 'the pause': David Cameron and Prince Charles attended the historic 2015 Paris climate change conference with 150 world leaders. Cameron committed Britain to an EU-Wide emission cut as a result. And Charles, writing in this paper last month, stated there was no pause in global warming, influenced by the flawed NOAA paper that made this claim

The PM, the Prince and ‘the pause’: David Cameron and Prince Charles attended the historic 2015 Paris climate change conference with 150 world leaders. Cameron committed Britain to an EU-Wide emission cut as a result. And Charles, writing in this paper last month, stated there was no pause in global warming, influenced by the flawed NOAA paper that made this claim

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.

image

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

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 hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

image

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.

One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.

Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’

Data changed to make the sea appear warmer

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

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.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used 'unverified' data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

The 'adjusted' sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.

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.

The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

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

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

They were forced to correct it: 18 months after the ‘Pausebuster’ paper was published in time for the 2015 Paris climate change conference, NOAA’s flawed sea temperature dataset is to be replaced. The new version will remedy its failings, and use data from both buoys and satellites (pictured) – which some say is the best data of all. The new version will show both lower temperatures and a lower warming trend since 2000

 

They were forced to correct it: 18 months after the ‘Pausebuster’ paper was published in time for the 2015 Paris climate change conference, NOAA’s flawed sea temperature dataset is to be replaced. The new version will remedy its failings, and use data from both buoys and satellites (pictured) – which some say is the best data of all. The new version will show both lower temperatures and a lower warming trend since 2000

Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.

President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.

‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

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.’

Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’

It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.

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.’

They played fast and loose with the figures

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

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#reader-comments

Advertisements
46 Comments
  1. February 5, 2017 12:57 pm

    I confess to not being a Mail reader but have to congratulate them for providing this thorough review. I wonder what the Gruinad will make of it . . .! Thanks as always for posting, Paul.

    • Adam permalink
      February 5, 2017 1:45 pm

      Strangely they are not running this story

    • February 5, 2017 2:02 pm

      I’m guessing the BBC aren’t covering it either, don’t know as am 5 days into my new life as a non-TV watcher, because real news is now only available online, and in a few newspapers, even LBC has the ghastly Sky news.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        February 5, 2017 7:48 pm

        The BBC doesn’t cover anything it hasn’t read in the Guardian. Remember how they were the last to catch on to Cheriegate? Every one else was all over the story of Cherie Blair, 2 flats in Bristol and a con man, but not a peep on the BBC or in the Guardian until they just couldn’t ignore it.

      • BLACK PEARL permalink
        February 5, 2017 7:54 pm

        Agree
        On Line news is THE ONLY REAL NEWS you can source
        Depressing when you think about it.

  2. February 5, 2017 1:06 pm

    Bates’ original, detailed account is here:

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

  3. February 5, 2017 1:07 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    If it weren’t for “saving the planet” syndrome, Tom Karl (NOAA), Gavin Schmidt (NASA) and the handful of global temp gatekeepers who collude in the fraud, would be locked up for destroying the reputation of science and costing taxpayers trillions upon trillions for 18+ years of ZERO global warming.

    But again, the worst any of these climate fraudsters will *ever* be accused of is an excess of virtue.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      February 6, 2017 5:50 am

      I am not entirely sure that they couldn’t be charged with Obtaining money under false pretences After all they’ve had 30 years of employment, not to mention bonuses from Green organisations (such as returned about 3 times his salary to J. Hansen) to keep their lifestyle going.
      However dismissal is probably the worst they have to face.

  4. Bitter&twisted permalink
    February 5, 2017 1:16 pm

    I’m shocked, Shocked, I tell you.
    Must be a mistake, or some fossil-fuel funded Denialist plot.

  5. Athelstan permalink
    February 5, 2017 1:22 pm

    Will the bbc report on this?

    Xor! you beat me to it Paul, I actually wandered over to NTZ and picked it up there……….as I said over on t’other thread – it’s not as if we didn’t already know this, fixing the statistical record – for “them” the alchemists of green – it’s nothing new is it?

  6. martinbrumby permalink
    February 5, 2017 1:26 pm

    “How world leaders were duped “???

    No, they may know bugger all about science and care even less about truth and the effect of their absurd policies on the countries they purport to “lead”, (let alone the poor and vulnerable.)

    But the only people who “duped” the “elite” were the elite themselves.

    I wouldn’t want to think that Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, Pope Francis, Obama and all the rest were going to stand behind their stooges Karl & Peterson and blame them. Fact is that Karl, Peterson, Mann, Phil Jones and all the rest have always been the ‘elite’s sock puppets, assiduously producing “evidence” to support the fashionable climate policies.

    • diogenese2 permalink
      February 5, 2017 4:20 pm

      Couldn’t put it better myself Martin. In fact Obama commissioned and paid for the report.
      Still, casting the Pinoccios as puppetmasters gives an exit line to the soon to be incoming new leadership in the developed world to divest themselves of a growing historic liability with minimal embarrassment. Lacking the cojones of the Trump, they can surreptitiously follow his lead and even blame it on him when he trashes Paris 2015. Japan is leading the way.
      Watch for growing panic amongst the climatocracy as they as they begin to perceive their next role.

      http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/collections/preraphaelites/item-227852.aspx

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 5, 2017 4:45 pm

      ‘World Leaders’, IMHO, were not duped by AGW, they set it up in the first place. To be duped is to be ignorant of the sting in the first place: they weren’t. They are in on the con and we are the mark. We are the ones being duped. World leaders and their mates have made obscene fortunes from AGW. They just want to keep the gravy train going.

  7. Joe Public permalink
    February 5, 2017 1:32 pm

    Just a reminder about one of your previous postings – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/thoughts-on-karls-pause-buster-paper/

    In ii, you draw attention to Climategate emails to see the blatant attempts that were made to remove the inconvenient 1940’s blip by tampering with SST’s.

    (Note the phrase speculations on correcting SSTs; now compare with the latest Karl paper which mentions using updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea. )

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Phil,

    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean — but
    we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
    ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
    ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
    forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
    these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
    1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
    plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
    consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

    Removing ENSO does not affect this.

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
    but we are still left with “why the blip”.

    Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
    effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
    ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
    in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

    The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
    MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
    get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
    solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
    (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
    makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
    currently is not) — but not really enough.

    So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
    (SH/NH data also attached.)

    This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
    appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

    Tom.

    http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

  8. February 5, 2017 2:23 pm

    In engineering you archive everything mainly for your own purposes, so that you can make more copies, and understand what you did 6 months later, when memories fade. Just imagine the embarrassment if someone asks how it was done and you can’t answer. Climate Science is beyond parody for its neglect of basic principles.

    • February 5, 2017 3:27 pm

      It’s always amazed me how these Government organisations have got away without proper quality controls. Are they ever externally audited, or even internally audited? My company was regularly audited by the company’s own QA department and also by two external organisations. Everything had to be properly documented, checked and approved and all data and methods archived. No ifs no buts – no excuses. Not following procedures had very serious consequences.

  9. February 5, 2017 3:18 pm

    Over at WUWT, the usual alarmists such as Stokes and Mosher are, as ever, trying to deny reality.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 5, 2017 4:50 pm

      Phillip, Stokes (at WUWT) reckons that K15 data IS archived. I have asked him if it is possible therefore to reproduce Karl’s paper. No answer and, I’ll bet, none to come.

      • February 5, 2017 5:51 pm

        Archiving of data is actually a relatively minor problem here, even if they know exactly what version of software was used, and have it stored in a database the real problem is the dodgy “algorithms”, the fact that they were looking for a particular answer, and the apparent lack of any validation of the output.

        The Hockey Stick was the ultimate in dodgy practices: If you can try various selections/rejections of data, various versions of some of the data, various truncations, various interpolations, various statistical methods, and then fail to archive or document anything properly, and can stop when you get an answer you want, getting it published simply because of reputation and the political correctness of the answer.

      • Joe Public permalink
        February 5, 2017 5:55 pm

        This thread from Richard Betts’ Twitter a/c is interesting.

        Particularly Jonathan Jones’ subsequent observation:

        “so the paper came to the right conclusions by the wrong methods?”

  10. February 5, 2017 3:21 pm

    This report is really important and the Mail on Sunday and David Rose in particular deserve praise for putting it out there.

    • February 5, 2017 3:38 pm

      That’s precisely why it won’t appear on the BBC. The BBC prefers the fake data as it fits in with its fake news.

  11. February 5, 2017 3:35 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. John Peter permalink
    February 5, 2017 3:54 pm

    Lamar Smith is back on the case. He will get the e-mails now from NOAA and just watch the fireworks. His sources of information can now come forward and John Bates may be one of those.
    Will be interesting to see how Science handles this paper now. Will they withdraw and all subsequent papers and records will be thrown into doubt? They have a problem in that apparently the information was not archived in accordance with their requirements and it seems as if all the background information may have disappeared as the computer crashed. It is claimed that Carl 2015 et al. cannot be replicated as a consequence thereof.

    • February 5, 2017 5:22 pm

      Both good points. NOAA previously committed contempt of Congress by stonewalling Rep. Smith’s whistleblower based subpoena. And the paper needs retraction because NOAA did not follow Science’ written archive policies. There will be significant repercussions from this expose.

      • CheshireRed permalink
        February 5, 2017 7:20 pm

        How can a government agency stonewall when the government asks for (effectively) its own property? There shouldn’t be anything to discuss there; government asks, they get, pronto. Heads should’ve rolled for that.

  13. Matty permalink
    February 5, 2017 5:00 pm

    Oh ! Karl.
    You are but a fool.
    You still used the numbers,
    Even though I told you so.

  14. tom0mason permalink
    February 5, 2017 5:07 pm

    So it was a “science be damned we must get the message out” that the head of NOAA was overseeing. I wonder what Thomas Karl contractual obligations are?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 5, 2017 7:37 pm

      I wonder what Thomas Karl contractual obligations are?

      Meaning, wouldn’t we like to see his bank statements.

  15. Charlie.Moncur permalink
    February 5, 2017 5:11 pm

    This is fraud on a gigantic scale – diversion of resources – waste of money – and probably the death of many who could have benefited from these resources to provide life’s basics!!! So these scientist and their puppet masters are probably guilty of genocide. When will common sense prevail? I already see the Scottish government “rowing back’ – preparing to approve shale frac’ing and reactivating a major coal fired power station – Longannet. We really are led by a ship of clowns!!! Keep up the good work Paul.

  16. mothcatcher permalink
    February 5, 2017 5:33 pm

    I’ve read Bates’ account at Climate Etc, and the very interesting comments that followed. Nick Stokes comments are always to be respected.

    It’s going to be embarrassing for the Karl adherents, for sure, but it’s far from a killer blow. Look at it less as a conspiracy, rather more a ‘coalition of the willing’. Too much was learnt from Climategate for there to be much expectation that any ‘smoking gun’ emails exist. The non-archiving of data, regrettable though it is, seems to be something of a side issue. The take-away message, though, is pretty consistent with what we know already : the object of the exercise is clear even before the data is known. This is a consistent theme.

    There were a few hints that other whistleblowers are lined up. That should be interesting.

    • AlecM permalink
      February 5, 2017 5:57 pm

      The problem is that a number of mistakes were made and Climate Alchemists were almost certain that [CO2] increase would give warming. However, much of this would be offset by the 2nd Aerosol Indirect Effect. Furthermore, there would be positive feedback.

      Then, during the 1980s and 1990s there was warming, but it was from the reversed sign of the real 2nd AIE, not CO2. When the Earth started to react (by its PID control system), that warming rate fell to near zero.

      To keep the scam alive, in the early 1990s a decision was made to falsify temperatures. Anyone who attempted to blow the whistle was dumped. Too many political careers were at risk. Only now that senior Climate Alchemists are retiring is the truth coming out.

      Underlying is misinterpretation of Planck, Bose and Einstein whose radiative theory only applies to a vacuum: the atmosphere behaves differently: CO2 Climate Sensitivity of ~0.85 K is almost exactly offset by the low level water cycle. Te bad aerosol optical physics from Sagan and Pollack, and Hansen created imaginary positive feedback in hind-casting, also reducing negative feedback by low level clouds by a factor of ~4.

      An accumulation of smallish and biggish scientific lies is now irrefutable.

  17. February 5, 2017 5:47 pm

    People are learning not to trust Drama Queens and DramaGreens anymore.

  18. Athelstan permalink
    February 5, 2017 5:48 pm

    I do not have the link but I do very much, seem to recall in a paper by Ross McKitrick, him giving GCHN statistical analyes a thorough defenestration and with a fearful kicking some years ago and quite rightly at that.

    “Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs”

    Duh……………………so it’s even worse than we originally thought!!

    the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

    The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

    Hark at ’em.

    “slower rate in the recent warming trend”…………..and earlier in the piece – “pause”? since 1995: NH average T’s are fekkin declining.

    AND And still they won’t admit to lying, barefaced lying at that.

    Plus…………………. and all of this is, optimum timing for the Trump hatchet to be wielded without any favour or quarter granted. CUT, cut deep, chop and sever those atmospheric climate dead limbs Donald! NOAA first and then cast an eye on Penn State U, climatology faculty – there’s plenty of dead wood there and don’t stop till they all drop.

  19. Joe Public permalink
    February 5, 2017 7:08 pm

    From a comment on Twitter (apols to whoever raised it, I can’t remember author)

    It was words to the effect that as Thomas Karl isn’t a ‘Dr’, the titles of all other contributors were removed.

    And so, for such an influential paper, …….

  20. Coeur de Lion permalink
    February 5, 2017 7:32 pm

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

    (He’s not going to flog down two ladders in the gloom to read a thermometer pocketed on the main circulator inlet pipe, is he? It’s half a degree too hot anyway)

  21. February 5, 2017 8:53 pm

    There’s more here: http://www.thegwpf.com/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records/

    Let’s hope Karl ends up with Mann in the state pen.

  22. golf charlie permalink
    February 5, 2017 10:06 pm

    Phillip Bratby, you may be closer to the truth! Karl has done some dodgy paperwork whilst employed by the US Taxpayer.

    That may be sufficient for US Criminal Justice Departments to get interested. They have never been interested in libel involving Mann and Steyn, it remains a civil law matter.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      February 6, 2017 6:02 am

      An interesting point is that Mann has 2 court cases running. What will having colleagues shown up as frauds do for his (remaining) credibility?

  23. Colin permalink
    February 5, 2017 11:09 pm

    The NOAA aren’t too concerned about the methods employed as long as they get the correct answer. Quite a lot of confirmation bias I fear.

  24. AndyG55 permalink
    February 6, 2017 10:08 am

    Odd that NONE of his co-writers had the code or data.

    That can ONLY mean that NONE of them checked Tom’s work.

    Oh well, their names are now attached to this piece of scientific crap.

    Good luck to them 🙂

  25. February 6, 2017 11:59 am

    Matt Ridley writes on the subject in the Times:

    http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-politics-and-science-are-a-toxic-combination/

  26. February 6, 2017 1:18 pm

    No harm in publicising the chicanery although, as a matter of fact, little here that has not been obvious for years.

  27. BLACK PEARL permalink
    February 7, 2017 1:08 pm

    Oh dear does this mean Charles Lady Bird Book is officially based on fake facts & news !

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: