Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: data manipulated

Whistleblower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.5 Feb 20171,432 A high-level whistleblower at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has revealed that the organization published manipulated data in a major 2015 report on climate change in order to maximize impact on world leaders at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data. The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “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.”

Climate Data Is Being Misused and Manipulated, Says Award-Winning Scientist Dr. Pat Michaels

https://casf.me/climate-data-being-misused-manipulated/ By Patrick Michaels, H. Sterling Burnett  Climate scientist Patrick Michaels says there has been a profound suspension of the normal rules of science in the climate arena. For Michaels’ presentation at ICCC 13 click here. Burnett: You coauthored a book titled Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything. What is the thesis of the book? copyright 2016 by Cato Institute Michaels: Global warming is often presented as one of two alternative visions: left unattended, it will bring about an unmitigated disaster with tremendous consequences to humanity and the planet; or there is really “no such thing”—meaning little to no warming and little to no influence of human greenhouse-gas emissions on climate. [This interview was originally published by the Heartland Institute on December 5th, 2019.  It is being printed here with the permission of Dr. H. Sterling Burnett from the Heartland Institute.] There is a third way. I call it the ‘lukewarm” synthesis, which holds the surface temperature indeed is a bit warmer than it was around 1900, that people have something (but hardly everything) to do with that change, and that a synthesis of models and observations leads to the inescapable conclusion future warming—within the policy-responsible window—is likely to be modest and possibly quite beneficial. Burnett: Your ICCC-13 presentation discussed the misuse of climate data. Could you give a couple of examples of how climate data has been manipulated or misused to push alarming climate claims? Michaels: Climate records are in a constant state of revision—which seems odd, as there is only so much data. One blatant example is the so-called “pause-buster” dataset published by Thomas Karl and colleagues in Science in 2015. It had been well-known that, for largely unknown reasons, surface warming “stopped” after the 1997-1999 El Niño/La Niña cycle. Statistically, there was no significant warming trend from then through late 2014. In the 1990s, Karl developed a new global history replacing satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures with, in part, readings from cooling intake tubes onboard oceangoing vessels. This is an inferior dataset, as ships are of different composition and size, with different thermal characteristics and cooling tubes at different depths. At the same time, Karl’s employer, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), launched a large series of drifting buoys with calibrated instrumentation to measure surface temperatures over the ocean. The new dataset took the very good, unbiased, buoy temperatures and raised them all 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, to match the bad intake-tube temperatures. As more and more buoys were deployed, this was guaranteed to produce a warming trend. Another strange example relates to the oft-repeated nostrum that tropical cyclones—hurricanes, typhoons, etc.—-are becoming more severe. Disturbingly, the third (2014) National Assessment of climate change impacts on the United States, published quadrennially by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, showed a graphic of hurricane power from 1970 through 2009, superimposing a red, upward-pointing line from 1982 through 2009, with the obvious intent of showing a stark increase in recent hurricane power. Why did the data end in 2009 in a study published in 2014? It would have been easy to include data from 2010 through 2013. But had it done so, the upward trend would have vanished, with activity returning to its 1970 through 1982 baseline. Such errors, omissions, and commissions always seem to point in the direction of “it’s worse than we thought,” which is perhaps why retiring NOAA scientist John Bates accused the agency of “putting its thumb on the scales” of climate data in 2017. Burnett: What have you found to be the most disturbing aspect of the way climate research and climate policy have developed over the past two decades? Michaels: There has been a profound suspension of the normal rules of science in the climate arena. John Christy and Richard McNider at the University of Alabama-Huntsville have demonstrated climate models are predicting several times too much warming to have occurred since 1979, when satellite-sensed temperature records begin, in the tropical mid-troposphere. This is exceedingly important because it is the difference between surface and upper air temperatures that determines buoyancy or upward motion, allowing the abundant moisture over the tropical oceans to ultimately be transported northward to feed mid-latitude agriculture. Around 90 percent of the moisture that feeds the U.S. midwestern agricultural belt—in many respects, the most productive large agricultural area on Earth—originates over the tropics. Consequently, getting the moisture flux into this region wrong means future forecasts of world food supply as affected by climate change will be useless. This error is made in 31 of the 32 groups of models employed in the latest [fifth] Scientific Assessment of the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet it is this community of models that is used to drive impact models such as those for agriculture. A much better scientific practice would be to use the one model suite that works: the Russian version labelled INM-CM4, but INM-CM4 projects less warming in the coming century than any of the other model suites. The debates surrounding climate science and policy have become so vitriolic because of the tremendous amounts of money and power at stake in this issue. Proponents of drastic policy intervention know their models are on thin ice, and they will do anything to keep this fact from becoming general knowledge, including wrecking the career of anyone who might say something about it. _______________________ Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and for 30 years was a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. Michaels was honored with the Courage in Defense of Science Award from The Heartland Institute at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-13). H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. ([email protected]) is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.

Surface Temperature Data of Limited Scientific Value Even before Being Manipulated by Activists

http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/5094 Alan Carlin | July 22, 2019 Climate science has many fundamental problems.  One of them is the sparsity and mayor gaps in valid global temperature data prior to about 1980 and particularly prior to 1880, when there were only 174 stations with unadjusted data in the entire world.  This lack of data prior to he advent of satellite temperature data is a result of little data being collected until the late Twentieth Century. Even worse, what data there is has been repeatedly “adjusted,” usually in a similar way by increasing recent data and decreasing earlier data.  Many independent observers question whether these “adjustments” may be fraudulent.  And since the resulting data has lost many of its cyclical characteristics, a recent report concludes that “since the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO<sub>2</sub> Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated” by the research findings in the report. Briefly, there is no valid scientific basis for reaching any conclusions as to what  temperatures were prior to satellite data and to trust the adjusted GAST data. Yet climate alarmists usually assume that changes in surface temperatures prior to 1980 can be used to determine meaningful trends in global temperatures. To spend many trillions of dollars on the basis of such data is preposterous. We simply do not have data that would allow anyone to reach valid conclusions as to what temperatures were, let alone predicting what they will be many decades in the future, as most climate alarmists are want to do. I argue  that the world and particularly the US should currently do nothing on the basis of current “consensus” climate science other than continuing research until many of the problems of climate science are much better understood. So I advocate continuing research, hopefully by both climate alarmists and skeptics until valid scientific conclusions can be reached after careful application of the scientific method. I advocate no expenditures and particularly no subsidies whatever for building any energy production or user facilities that do not meet strict market-based benefit-cost criteria and wildlife-protection safeguards until valid conclusions concerning  trends in global temperatures can be demonstrated scientifically and valid conclusions reached concerning the causes of these trends have been independently determined and verified. Current wind and solar installations do not meet these criteria. As detailed previously on this blog, the best current scientific evidence says that changes in carbon dioxide levels have had no significant effects on temperatures. This directly contradicts the conclusions of the UN and every climate alarmist I know of. And it utilizes only data collected since 1980.  This is another of the fundamental problems of climate science that needs to be resolved before any more wind and solar energy facilities are built.

New Study: Tide gages find no global ‘acceleration in sea level’ – But satellite data ‘manipulated’ to show acceleration

Via: http://www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol(6)8/Version-1/G0608014851.pdf Abstract: Sea level changes is a key issue in the global warming scenario. It has been widely claimed that sea is rising as a function of the late 20th’s warming pulse. Global tide gauge data sets may vary between +1.7 mm/yr to +0.25 mm/yr depending upon the choice of stations. At numerous individual sites, available tide gauges show variability around a stable zero level. Coastal morphology is a sharp tool in defining ongoing changes in sea level. A general stability has been defined in sites like the Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh and Fiji. In contrast to all those observations, satellite altimetry claim there is a global mean rise in sea level of about 3.0 mm/yr. In this paper, it is claimed that the satellite altimetry values have been “manipulated”. In this situation, it is recommended that we return to the observational facts, which provides global sea level records varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr; i.e. values that pose no problems in coastal protection. Keywords: Manipulation, observational facts, satellite altimetry, sea level change, tide gauges ————————————————————————————————————————————— Date of Submission: 26-07-2017 Date of acceptance: 05-08-2017 … V. CONCLUSION Satellite altimetry is a new elegant tool to view the changes in sea level over the globe, maybe especially the spatial changes, which, indeed, verified the long-term notion that sea level change over the last 5000-6000 years are dominated by the redistribution of water masses [29]. The temporal changes, on the other hand, has always remained very questionable as they seem to over-estimate observed sea level changes by 100-400% [9-16]. It seems quite weird to claim that it would be the satellite altimetry that is right and that the true observations in the field are wrong (still this is what the people around the IPCC and the Paris agreement at COP21 continue to claim). Fig. 1 reveals what is going on. It is the satellite altimetry data, which have been “corrected” to give a rise in the order of 3.0 mm/yr. This “correction” [19-21] may, of course, be classified as a “manipulation” of facts, like the manipulation temperature measurements recently revealed [1-3]. In this situation, there are all reasons to return to solid observational facts [11-16].Those facts are controllable, and this is a key criterion in science.The global perspective is general stability to a minor rise with variations between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr [16]. This poses no problem for coastal protection. Therefore, we should free the world from the horror issue that low-lying coasts and islands will become seriously flooded in this century. Up to the present, there has been no convincing recording of any acceleration in sea level, rather the opposite: a total lack of any sign of an accelerating trend. For full study see here. # End study excerpt Related Links: Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago. There is currently no acceleration in sea level rise. Sea level rise hysteria can be cured by looking at tide gauge data Sea Level 2000 years ago higher than today? Roman coastline discovered two miles inland Bjorn Lomborg About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands – ‘Total land area of the islands has actually grown’ Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years. If a major hurricane is approaching with a predicted storm surge of 10-14 feet, are you really going to worry about a sea level rise of 1 inch per decade? Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology: ‘Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions.’ – ‘The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century.  Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can’t make a convincing argument as to acceleration.’ Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: ‘For the past 130 years there has been ZERO acceleration in sea-level rise as directly measured by tide gauges in tectonically inert areas (land neither moving up nor down), even as CO2 has risen almost 40% in the same period.’ Peer-Reviewed Studies Demolish Warmists’ Sea Level Rise Scares: ‘Decelerated 44% since 2004′ – ‘Global sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000 years, decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels. Global sea level rise from tide gauges (1.6 mm/year) is half of that claimed from satellites (3.2 mm/year). Which is right? – ‘There is no acceleration of the increase’ – [Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]

‘Global warming’ dominated by ‘fake news’ fueled by manipulated data

By Daniel G. Jones For decades, we’ve heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming.  Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers’ emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren’t quite on the up-and-up, science-wise.  Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests.  “Climategate,” as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news. It happened again about a month ago.  On February 4, Dr. John Bates, “senior scientist” at NOAA’s temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise.  He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had “breached [NOAA’s] own rules on scientific integrity when [he] published [a] sensational but flawed report” and rushed it into print in order to influence global leaders at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris in 2015. That paper, called the “Pausebuster,” cited new data purporting to show that the hiatus in global warming since 1998 had not occurred.  According to Dr. Bates, however, Dr. Karl had put his “thumb on the scale” by releasing new data that were “misleading” and “unverified.”  Furthermore, it is unlikely ever to be verified: Dr. Bates also reported that the computer used to process the data “had suffered a complete failure.”  Hello, Climategate 2.0! Oh, you’d never heard of it?  I bet you’ve heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake “Pausebuster” data.  But the mainstream media have little interest writing stories that refute liberal assumptions, so fake news becomes no news.  To hear about Climategate 2.0, you’d have to follow alternative sources like Manhattan Contrarian (where I first learned of it), or Judith Curry, or Watt’s Up with That?, or the U.K.’s Daily Mail. This pattern of fake news followed by no news has been repeated throughout the era of climate change fabulist fear-mongering.  In 1989, according to the Associated Press, a director of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) predicted that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels … by the year 2000.”  This was followed by no news about no nations being covered by the sea in 2001. In 1990, Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and Al Gore adviser, predicted that by 1995, the greenhouse effect would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.”  No news in 1996 brought Oppenheimer’s error to public attention. In 2005, UNEP warned that by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing low-lying Caribbean and Pacific islands inundated by rising seas.  No news in 2011 calmed islanders’ fears. In 2007, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013.  No news in the fall of 2013 reminded readers that the North Pole was covered in snow that summer.

Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Hype ‘Global Warming’

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=1c2cf9b0f9&e=f4e33fdd1e NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data 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. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 5 February 2017. 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…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…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. 1) World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data Mail on Sunday, 5 February 2017 2) John Bates: Climate Scientists Versus Climate Data Climate Etc. 5 February 2017 3) Matt Ridley: Politics And Science Are A Toxic Combination The Times, 6 February 2017 Excerpts: Whistleblower Bates “is no “denier”; he was awarded a gold medal by the US government in 2014 for his climate-data work” — “More than just a routine science scandal..embarrasses science journalists who have been chronicling growing evidence of scientific misconduct.” 4) David Whitehouse: Don’t Be Distracted By Nit-Pickers: This Is Serious GWPF Observatory, 6 February 2017 5) Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records U.S. Committee On Science, Space and Technology, 5 February 2017 6) Cambridge University Clashes With Own Academics Over Climate Change Financial Times, 5 February 2017 As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment. The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s. In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. –John Bates, Climate Etc. 5 February 2017 “In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.  I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’ “Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that 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. –Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), U.S. Committee On Science, Space and Technology, 5 February 2017 I have championed science all my adult life. It is humankind’s greatest calling. That is why I deplore those who drag down its reputation by breaching its codes of conduct for political reasons, and I have no time for those excusing these enormities. They foment anti-intellectualism and play directly into the hands of people such as Mr Trump. Under the Obama administration,” says Professor Judith Curry, Dr Bates’s colleague, “I suspect that it would have been very difficult for this story to get any traction.” Yikes. Dr Bates calls for more ethics teaching in science and for “respectful discussion of different points of view” — which we were emptily promised after climategate. It is time for the many brilliant scientists who are discovering great insights into quasars and quarks, Alzheimer’s and allergies, into neurons, fossils, telomeres and ice ages, to “take a public stand and be counted” against the politicisation of some science within their own ranks. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 6 February 2017 The University of Cambridge has become embroiled in an internal battle after executives at the UK’s richest educational institution clashed with academics over proposals to divest from fossil fuels. Last month the university’s governing body, which is made up of senior academic and administrative staff from its 31 colleges, passed a motion to divest Cambridge’s £5.8bn endowment from fossil fuels. But in an unprecedented break from university tradition, Cambridge’s council, its executive arm that sets policy, has said it will not follow through with the governing body’s calls for divestment within the next 12 months. The council is reluctant to cut investments in fossil fuel companies without assessing how this would affect funding for its teaching and research programmes. –Attracta Mooney, Financial Times, 5 February 2017 1) World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data Mail on Sunday, 5 February 2017 David Rose 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. Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday 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 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. 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. Full post 2) John Bates: Climate Scientists Versus Climate Data Climate Etc. 5 February 2017 A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center. I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment. The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015. In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided. Background In 2013, prior to the Karl study, the National Climatic Data Center [NCDC, now the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)] had just adopted much improved processes for formal review of Climate Data Records, a process I formulated [link]. The land temperature dataset used in the Karl study had never been processed through the station adjustment software before, which led me to believe something was amiss. When I pressed the co-authors, they said they had decided not to archive the dataset, but did not defend the decision. One of the co-authors said there were ‘some decisions [he was] not happy with’. The data used in the K15 paper were only made available through a web site, not in digital form, and lacking proper versioning and any notice that they were research and not operational data. I was dumbstruck that Tom Karl, the NCEI Director in charge of NOAA’s climate data archive, would not follow the policy of his own Agency nor the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation. I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy. Full post 3) Matt Ridley: Politics And Science Are A Toxic Combination The Times, 6 February 2017 Alternative facts have no place in climate-change research. Greater integrity is essential if the scandals are to stop Back in December, some American scientists began copying government climate data onto independent servers in what press reports described as an attempt to safeguard it from political interference by the Trump administration. There is to be a March for Science in April whose organisers say: “It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.” Well, today they have a chance to do just that, but against their own colleagues who stand accused of doing what they claim the Trump team has done. Devastating new testimony from John Bates, a whistleblowing senior scientist at America’s main climate agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, alleges that scientists themselves have been indulging in alternative facts, fake news and policy-based evidence. Dr Bates’s essay on the Climate Etc. website (and David Rose’s story in The Mail on Sunday) documents allegations of scientific misconduct as serious as that of the anti-vaccine campaign of Andrew Wakefield. Dr Bates’s boss, Tom Karl, a close ally of President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, published a paper in 2015, deliberately timed to influence the Paris climate jamboree. The paper was widely hailed in the media as disproving the politically inconvenient 18-year pause in global warming, whose existence had been conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) two years earlier. Dr Bates says Mr Karl based the “pausebuster” paper on a flawed land-surface data set that had not been verified or properly archived; and on a sea-surface set that corrected reliable data from buoys with unreliable data from ship intakes, which resulted in a slightly enhanced warming trend. Science magazine is considering retracting the paper. A key congressional committee says the allegations confirm some of its suspicions. Dr Bates is no “denier”; he was awarded a gold medal by the US government in 2014 for his climate-data work. Having now retired he writes of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”, of a “rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” and concludes: “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the data sets leading into [the report], we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.” This is more than just a routine scientific scandal. First, it comes as scientists have been accusing President Trump and other politicians of politicising science. econd, it potentially contaminates any claim that climate science has been producing unbiased results. Third, it embarrasses science journalists who have been chronicling the growing evidence of scientific misconduct in medicine, toxicology and psychology, but ignored the same about climate science because they approve of the cause, a habit known as noble-cause corruption. Colleagues of Mr Karl have been quick to dismiss the story, saying that other data sets come to similar conclusions. This is to miss the point and exacerbate the problem. If the scientific establishment reacts to allegations of lack of transparency, behind-closed-door adjustments and premature release so as to influence politicians, by saying it does not matter because it gets the “right” result, they will find it harder to convince Mr Trump that he is wrong on things such as vaccines. Besides, this is just the latest scandal to rock climate science. The biggest was Climategate in 2009, which showed scientists conspiring to ostracise sceptics, delete emails, game peer review and manipulate the presentation of data, including the truncation of a tree-ring-derived graph to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling (“hide the decline”). The scientists concerned were criticised by two rather perfunctory inquiries, but have since taken to saying they were “exonerated”. Full post 4) David Whitehouse: Don’t Be Distracted By Nit-Pickers: This Is Serious GWPF Observatory, 6 February 2017 David Rose’s excellent investigative journalism in the Mail on Sunday has turned up a remarkable story of poor scientific practice, lack of openness and bias regarding the Karl et al (2015) paper in Science. This is the paper that was quickly dubbed the “pausebuster” as it was said to have removed any evidence of a “pause” or “hiatus” in the rate of increase of surface warming over the past 20 years or so contradicting the IPCC’s own assessment of two years earlier. There was very little public criticism when the Karl paper came out although we now know, thanks to David Rose’s piece, that that was far from the case within the scientific community. At the time of Karl paper critics pointed out that whatever the details of his new analysis was, it was clear that the authors had underestimated errors, and given that the claim of having eliminated the “pause” was premature. The Mail on Sunday piece is the most important piece of climate science journalism in a decade, opening a door on the hitherto closed world of internal NOAA discussions, revealing how scientific data can be massaged and timed, towards a predetermined end. It is rightly being taken very seriously by many people and will likely lead to further U.S. investigations. However, such is the nature of the climate debate that some are only concerned with the omission of a few words in an image caption. It’s a clear case of deflection from the substantive part of the article. The problem is the caption to the graph which shows NOAA surface temperature data and HadCRUT4 temperature data post-1997. It should have said that NOAA was drawn relative to the average of its data between 1901 and 2000. HadCRUT4, however, takes its average or starting point from data between 1961 – 90. Whilst the data in the graph is accurate the caption was incomplete, until it was updated. It was seized upon by a few who made jokes about it for a while probably without stopping to think it was a caption error. But in the main it was done by those who prefer Twitter put-downs rather than anything more serious and lack the grace to look beyond a simple caption error to the bigger picture. Twitter is a wonderful way to disseminate information, but in some climate cases, in some hands, it is the shallow end of the pool for those who don’t want much more than gags. To clarify matters let me show the data from NOAA and HadCRUT4 using the same baseline period. Fig 1 shows monthly data post-1997 (HadCRUT4 is black, NOAA red) and Fig 2 shows the annual data (HadCRUT4 is blue, NOAA is red and NASA GIS green). You can see that in the past decade NOAA has changed from being mostly cooler than HadCRUT4 to being mostly warmer. The month-by-month accumulation of this shows up well in a graph of annual data. These graphs show that the introduction of the approach by Karl et al (2015) into NOAA’s global temperature analysis has resulted in a larger rate of warming using what Dr Bates suggests in the Mail on Sunday is a dubious and protocol. The changes made by Karl were influential but small and temporary and are turning out to be irrelevant anyway because of what the data is actually doing. Should anyone still think that the higher trends that include the years 2015 and 2016 are due to long-term global warming take a look at HadCRUT4, Fig 3, where you can see the deviation caused by the recent strong El Nino. Is there “no detectable sign of a “hiatus” or “pause” through to the present?” One can see the decline to 2014 temperatures and the return of the “pause.” This latest development is one of scientific conduct and integrity. The global temperature datasets are among the most important datasets in the world. Billions of pounds rest on them. Politics and policies, jobs and industries, and the prosperity of billions are derived from them. What the Mail on Sunday’s story, and its ongoing aftermath shows, is that what some scientists consider to be adequate stewardship of this data is not the case. It is not good enough to say that one believes the researchers would probably have released their computer code if they were asked for it, or to say the data was archived because it was available on an ftp site, or that procedures put in place were bypassed because they were inconvenient. In the Mail on Sunday article it is reported that some of the younger scientists at NOAA didn’t even know that data had to be archived. Software runs our lives. The software that runs financial institutions is not perfect, but it is tested to industrial standards and protocols. So is the software used by health services and by engineers. I suspect that more people are involved in the production, testing and documentation of the software for a supercar than in some of the departments than produce these climate critical databases. Not long ago a professor of climate science at a British university involved in compiling such a climate database said he wouldn’t know how to insert data into an Excel spreadsheet. Climategate revealed just how ad hoc, modified and ancient are some of the programs being used. Feedback: [email protected] 5) Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records U.S. Committee On Science, Space and Technology, 5 February 2017 WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John 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.  In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference.  Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.  I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’ “Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that 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.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): “I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people.  Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.” Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda.  I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee’s efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.” Full post 6) Cambridge University Clashes With Own Academics Over Climate Change Financial Times, 5 February 2017 Attracta Mooney University executive refuses to implement governing body’s carbon divestment motion The University of Cambridge has become embroiled in an internal battle after executives at the UK’s richest educational institution clashed with academics over proposals to divest from fossil fuels. Last month the university’s governing body, which is made up of senior academic and administrative staff from its 31 colleges, passed a motion to divest Cambridge’s £5.8bn endowment from fossil fuels. The decision came amid investor concern that fossil fuel companies will suffer large losses as governments around the world seek to tackle global warming. But in an unprecedented break from university tradition, Cambridge’s council, its executive arm that sets policy, has said it will not follow through with the governing body’s calls for divestment within the next 12 months. The council is reluctant to cut investments in fossil fuel companies without assessing how this would affect funding for its teaching and research programmes. Full story

New Scandal Rocks Climate Debate: NOAA Whistleblower reveals: ‘World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?utm_content=bufferdb7f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming   The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday PUBLISHED: 17:57 EST, 4 February 2017 | UPDATED: 20:05 EST, 4 February 2017         e-mail   2.1kshares   385 View comments   Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday 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.   Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XmK8dSBJ Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

NOAA Whistleblower: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data

First NOAA Whistleblower https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/first-noaa-whistleblower/ Many more to come… World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history, and this needs to end now that criminals are no longer in control of our government. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details. Kent Clizbe Fraud Detection Services [email protected] www.credibilityassurance.com 571 217 0714 Tweet — gReader Pro

Italian meteorologist Colonel Paolo Ernan:  Data manipulated to make people believe in global warming

Italian meteorologist – Data manipulated to make people believe in global warming https://iceagenow.info/italian-meteorologist-data-manipulated-make-people-believe-global-warming/ There are ongoing attempts to distort the data in global temperatures, says Italian meteorologist Colonel Paolo Ernani. This process is particularly evident in surface temperature data from the United States. Plus, look at the exchange of e-mails between the various researchers worried that actual temperature measurements conflict with their theory. I personally denounced this misbehavior on December 4, 2015 in an article entitled ” Global Warming and Climate Change! What a mess.” Excerpts from above article by Col. Paul Ernani, climatologist. (This was in Italian. Please let me know if I have paraphrased it incorrectly.) Why is there this desire to convince the public that the Earth is heading towards an inexorable rise in temperature? What’s behind it? What interests are being served? The majority of the media is always talking about Global Warming as something already acquired, as if it were real, when in fact there are many scientists and scholars who do not agree on that. Supporters of Global warming, the so-called “caldisti”, use that term less and less. Today it is increasingly popular to use the term “climate change”? What does that (climate change) mean ? It’s ambiguous. It lends itself to multiple interpretations. Perhaps their models are imperfect and not very reliable. We have suggested they include “Sunspots” in their models to improve reliability, but it did not help. The temperature of our planet is quite correlated with this variable. Recent studies reinforce even more the link between temperature on Earth and sun spots. The news these days say the Earth’s temperature could rise between 4-6 degrees Celsius degrees by the end of the century, and dues to melting ice, many coastal cities will be submerged. Does it seem strange that these hypothetical disasters are announced in conjunction with the conference on climate change in Paris? It is good to remember that one of the largest and most powerful controllers of climate is water vapor. Even so, they want to sponsor the Green Energy. The I.P.C. C. subsidizes many research institutions and universities, and this is certainly fine. But, hypothetically, if their research shows that the temperature of the globe is not increasing, they my remain silent in order to not create embarrassment to those who finance them. Solar activity underestimated More disturbing is the fact that the President is not preparing the country for the coming difficult times because of the dangerous changes in solar activity. The sun is the primary source of climate change. Reducing the energy radiated will lead to a new cold climate and we will all face a more difficult future totally unprepared. http://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/meteo-analisi-dati-climatici-governi-global-warming http://www.freddofili.it/11827-global-warming-e-cambiamenti-climatici-che-confusione/ Thanks to Dr Mirco Poletto in Italy for these links The post Italian meteorologist – Data manipulated to make people believe in global warming appeared first on Ice Age Now. — gReader Pro

For more results click below