Climate Change

Climate Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data to Fool Politicians and Public, Claims 'Whistleblower'

Another update on the 'settled science' of climate change

|

GlobalWarmingQuestionsAlexParfenovDreamstime
Alex Parfenov/Dreamstime

The Daily Mail reports that climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated temperature data to make it look like the rate of global warming is speeding up after 2000. Their study published in 2015 in Science called into question the existence of the 17-year long "hiatus" during which the increase in global average temperature had significantly slowed. In its 2013 comprehensive Fifth Assessment Report, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted, "The rate of warming of the observed global mean surface temperature over the period from 1998 to 2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over the period from 1951 to 2012." The NOAA study instead found that the oceans are warming at 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, which is nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This rate is similar to the warming that occurred between 1970 and 1999.

The goal of 2015 Science study, according to the Mail, was to convince policy makers and the public of the need to adopt what would become the Paris Agreement on climate change that aims to keep global temperature from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. This goal would be achieved chiefly by curbing the emissions of carbon dioxide produced by burning oil, gas, and coal.

The Mail's reporting relies chiefly on claims being made by now-retired NOAA climate scientist John Bates whose expertise is verifying and archiving data. In an interview with the Mail, Bates is quoted as accusing….

…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'.

According to Bates, both the sea surface and land temperature data were adjusted at the insistence of now retired NOAA researcher Tom Karl in ways that created specious warming trends and that both are now being reviewed to see if corrections are warranted. Bates also asserts that the data on which the 2015 study was based were not properly archived such that other researchers would be able to check what was done to the data.

So settled science? Not hardly. In February 2016, Nature Climate Change published an article by a prominent group of researchers led by Canadian climate scientist John Fyfe that concluded that global warming hiatus is real and thus strongly contradicted Karl's 2015 Science study:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

NatureClimateChangeModels
Nature Climate Change

The above figure by Fyfe and his colleagues compares three different surface temperature records with 124 simulations from 41 different climate models. As you can see the models are running hotter than the actual temperature trends and the pace of warming did slow down after 2000. As Nature News reported: "There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing," says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. "We can't ignore it."

Next in this saga of data slinging is a new study published in Science Advances just last month by the researchers from the Berkeley Earth group that concludes that the adjustments made under the direction of Karl at NOAA are basically correct. Today over at Carbon Brief, lead Berkeley Earth researcher Zeke Hausfather notes that the Daily Mail article failed to mention his study which found that the revised NOAA temperature data are accurate.

ScienceAdvancesHausfather
Science Advances

Hausfather writes:

In a paper published last month in the journal Science Advances, we compared the old NOAA record and the new NOAA record to independent instrumentally homogenous records created from buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats. Our results, as you can see in the chart below above, show that the new NOAA record agrees quite well with all of these, while the old NOAA record shows much less warming.

This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally).

In the Mail, Bates says:

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.'

Bates' charges about data manipulation are serious and must be properly investigated (although how to do that dispassionately and objectively in the politicized field of climate science is not at all clear).

Advertisement

NEXT: The NYPD's Transparency Policies Make No Sense

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. I don’t know if we’re allowed to talk about him or not.

      1. Just don’t call him Lucy!

        1. Besides Bill, I know of John Steigerwald, but not Lucy

    2. Just to clarify, he is a climate-change skeptic, not a capital S skeptic. Capital S skeptics are critical of religion, homeopathy, and a host of other topics, but not about CAGW.

    3. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

    4. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  1. the Berkeley Earth group

    Of course it’s warmer there, the students set fire to the campus!

    1. the Berkeley Earth group

      heh…

      1. Acronym: BEG
        hmmm….

        1. It’s more succinct than their previous iteration, People Loving Earth’s Amazing, Soothing Environment

  2. Good article, Ron.
    I’m looking forward to reality, not screeching from predictors that haven’t been right yet.

    1. If “Whistleblower” is in quote marks, than “Scientists” should be, too.

      1. Those are the scare quotes of a man who’s afraid that his gravy train might be in danger.

    1. Well, OK, then, I am glad I am not a gunslinger in the Old West!

      1. Don’t worry, SQRLSY. The comment that’s gonna take me down is already loaded in someone’s keyboard.

  3. I didnt read this article because Ive already read about the story.

    The article I read mentioned that this high placed and well resspected scientist still felt the need to wait 2 years until after he retired to blow his whistle.
    Burreaucratic agencies have taken a power of their own that was never intended.
    I found it very noticeable when the IRS carrerist simply shot Congress the finger during investigations into political activism

    1. Speaking of the IRS, they must have the same IT guys as NOAA

      Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

      1. But it was real clean!

        1. With a cloth?

    2. Never intended by whom?

    3. Well, it sounds like he did launch his own investigation into it, so subtract however long that took from the two years, but your point still stands that the timing is worrying with respect to the power the unaccountable agencies wield.

  4. FAKE NEWS! RON IS A DENIER!

    1. On a related note…

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ … 2017/01/170122213557.htm

      (Take out the spaces in the above too-long link, sorry I am a tech weenie)
      Psychological ‘vaccine’ could help immunize public against ‘fake news’ on climate change, study suggests

      Could they please re-run this with the “innoculation” info being “email-gate” etc., known instances of HEAVY political pressures brought against researchers who do not favor all-out panic?

      Also… Is this just “how to do propaganda in the name of science”, or am I just a bitter cynic?

      1. Sounds just a wee bit Orwellian. But no surprises that a leftist would come up with something like that.

        1. you realize we live in an Orwellian society now?

          IPass is a tracking device…hence why it never beeps anymore. They have IPass scanners on all the roads to track your movement. I ahe emailed reason and EFF and they never bother publishing this.

          Tolls in IL take your photo every time whether you pay or not and it is stored in IL State police headquaters in Spring Field. EFF/Reason never reported this after i told them about it. Police can request the photos of drivers whenever they want to.

          IL has a face recognition system.

          Sting ray

          Government can turn on your phone and listen at will and track you and use your camera with out you ever knowing

          AT&T NSA secret room

          PRISM

          dossiers on any citizen that has uses Tails OS/TOR and other programs

          RDRand

          other things like RDRand i wont bother listing

          Man in the middle HTTPS attacks. There is a box the government uses to MITM attack HTTPs that fakes SSLs so you dont even know HTTPs is broken

          The fucking list goes on.

          1. government can access our credit card purchase history and bank records at a whim without a warrant.

            they have access with no warrant any email older than 180 days and most email places just hand over emails anyways.

            …okay i am stopping…starting to rage

            1. At this point all we can do is insist that this binlical deluge of data be stored indefinetly, in broad catagories, amd that the search software and comuter hardware involved be put through normal Congressional procurement proceedures. That way they may HAVE the data, but they won’t have a hope of FINDING it.

      2. Right after the election, I think it was AP that ran an article claiming the Russkis used ‘sophisticated software’ to develop the propaganda which supposedly jigged the election. I’ll claim cynicism here also.

        1. What utter bullshit.

        2. Hey, for some of us MS Word and photoshop are pretty darned sophisticated.

          1. Wait, you mean this computerator can make my words bold AND italicized?

            Whoa

            Just, whoa

            1. It can also make formatted, multi-level lists after mere months of fighting with its styles system.

        3. Yeah, it’s amazing how they avoid discussing what the Russians actually did to derail Hillary or effect the election.

          1. Who knows?
            But they used “sophisticated software” to generate the propaganda that changed millions of votes. I’m told.

      3. Also… Is this just “how to do propaganda in the name of science”, or am I just a bitter cynic?

        Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you 🙂

        They cite the idea that there isn’t a “consensus” on climate science as their top piece of misinformation, which apparently makes people not believe in climate change, or that humans are responsible. It seems to me that they are committing the exact same misinformation, by claiming that consensus among scientists is in any way relevant to the state of the universe.

        History is full of scientists who had a consensus which turned out to be completely and embarrassingly wrong. And in a lot of cases, it was the shunned outsider scientists who didn’t bend to this consensus who turned out to be correct. For now.

        1. “History is full of scientists who had a consensus which turned out to be completely and embarrassingly wrong. And in a lot of cases, it was the shunned outsider scientists who didn’t bend to this consensus who turned out to be correct. For now.”

          Nope. Most were firmly part of the scientific community. The ones your probably thinking of were the exception that proved the rule. Nobody remembers the vast swathes of lunatic scientists with fringe theories that did, indeed, turn out to be wrong, because why would you?

          1. That’s not entirely true. Yes, there are ton’s of people across history who made predictions that were horribly wrong, and as you said, we only remember the ones who were right. However, his quote is correct, there are NUMEROUS cases where the general consensus of the scientific community was X and 1 or 2 people said it was Y and it took 40 or 50 years for the consensus to change that Y was in fact right. Throughout all of those examples they used the same words as we they do now, heretic, denier, etc.

            Michael Crichton did a great speech called “Aliens cause global warming”, you should read it sometime, he details many prominent examples of this type of consensus science and why it is bad. My favorite example was Puerperal Fever. Other examples he sites? Pellagra, consensus was it was a germ, turned out to be poor diet. Continental Drift took 50 years for the consensus to reach the correct conclusion.

            He gives other examples: “The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.”

      4. It is hard to see how anyone with a smidgeon of intellectual honesty would want to be anywhere near those creeps. In their test they used the statement ‘97% of scientists agree’ as the true statement, a claim that has been thoroughly wrecked over and over again.

        “Study seeks techniques for brainwashing people into believing an assertion for which there is zero evidence” would be a better title.

        Has it occurred to anyone that if they had a solid case they wouldn’t have to resort to tactics like this? That they are is all I need to know to make up my mind.

        1. I’m guessing you’re no scientist, then.

          1. or a really, really good scientist?

  5. From the abstract of the Science article:

    Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.

    The bolded sentence is very weird to see in a scientific journal article. When disputes erupt about topics in non-politicized fields, you don’t see this open, sneering type of statement.

  6. The charges laid out in The Daily Mail, bolstered by the identity of the whistleblower, are serious.

    Retraction of that study and loss of government funding would be very appropriate here.

    1. This guy reports on this stuff a lot. The sense I get is that the whole thing is a house of cards.

    2. See, its the government funding problem again. Why does everyone think that is a good idea. I am sure some of you understand the dislike I generate every time I bring that up.

      Because “only government can do science”!

    3. He originally came out with this on Judy Curry’s blog. https://judithcurry.com/

  7. If the practices and actions of these guys had been in any other field, one not politicized where no real money was on the line, these studies would be laughed at and thrown out. The guys who did it would be shamed, put out on their asses and flipping burgers somewhere.

  8. If they lied about these numbers, what other things are they lying about? As the Roman historian Setonious once said, “people do not just become depraved”. It is very unlikely that this was the first or even the biggest lie these people have told.

    It is a bold claim to say that AGW is entirely a hoax and not even buy into it being somewhat true. But, the question needs to be asked “if there is anything to this and it is not a complete hoax, why do its proponents feel the need to lie so much”? Last I looked people who were supporting a truthful position didn’t need to lie.

    1. Truth does not matter to the left. And neither does climate change. What matters is that people believe that we are in imminent danger and will probably all die from climate change unless we are ‘saved’ through trillions of dollars in new taxes to be distributed in a way global socialists approve of, which would be mostly to them and their cronies. But a few tin pot dictators would benefit also.

      1. Truth does not matter to the left.

        Bingo

        Truth is a leading which is useful to the Left

    2. The harm they’re doing to the scientific field is going to take generations to fix. For that alone, they should be publicly crucified (metaphorically speaking (well, sort of))

      1. yep … why resort to metaphors?

        1. Because we live in a post-preet world.

          1. Sounds like another good reason to defect to Steam ….

      2. Vote Woodchipper!

    3. Also consider this. Why do they feel such an overwhelming desire to silence anyone who voices dissent if their argument is so compelling? Unfortunately for them, most Americans either consider global warming to be a hoax perpetrated by some rent seeking crooks, or just not a major concern in their life.

    4. Here comes John with his outdated, neo-Socratic view of life and the scientific method …

      Next thing you know, he’ll want to execute actors because their chosen career depends on them being something they aren’t, and demanding philosopher kings who are wiser and nobler than us.

      1. Acting is a profession paid to lie.

        Science as a discipline is supposed to be about the truth.

        A lying scientist is worse than a lying actor by orders of magnatude (even worse than an honest actor, should one be found)

        1. In the Inferno, Betrayers were sent to the final Circle of Hell.

          1. where do the douche bags go?

            1. The Reason comments section?

    5. “people do not just become depraved”

      Yes they do. They voted for Obama, then those same people voted for Trump.

    6. Just like Dan Rather’s said the documents may be fake but the story they prove is real.

    7. The argument is all about the fake data, but where is the story about the real damage caused by AGW? Show me the dead penguins, the baked Alaskans, the boiled lobsters – damn, I shouldn’t post just before dinnertime.

    8. The thing is, the Progressive Left lies unthriftily. They lie when they don’t need to, out of laziness or habit.

  9. Adjustments to raw data are fine, but they represent judgment and aren’t data themselves. When the trend appears or disappears depending the adjustment, that’s a big problem for your theory and suggests that your raw data is pretty much worthless.

    1. Assuming the raw data still exists of course.

      /sarc

      1. It’s kind of funny the same kind of people at various educational institutions across the land are trying to rescue climate data before Trump hits the delete button.

    2. The margin of error is usually pretty substantial considering the precision of the numbers we are fed.

      1. First thing you learn in engineering is significant figures and how to use them. Climate scientists apparently missed this lesson.

        1. Oh they didn’t. They just choose to use them in a very specific way.

        2. Accuracy vs. Precision.

        3. Yep. Your final answer can never be more precise than your least precise input.

        4. thats where I always laugh when they make claims of a hundredth of a degree when most instruments can barely manage whole number with any accuracy especially when they start statistictly correcting 100 year old instruments that couldn’t even register with in a degree let alone a percent of degree depending on the angle the observer looked at the instrument. short guy vs the tall guy vs the mid high guy who mounted it where he could see it.

          1. Those mercury thermometers must have read high – because every year when NOAA puts out data the past keeps getting colder and colder.

    3. Adjustments to raw data are fine, but they represent judgment and aren’t data themselves.

      This is something to be heeded when looking at an election or political poll.

  10. Folks: Be careful of confirmation bias – let’s see if Bates’ claims can be substantiated. Also keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth researchers did an independent analysis of post-2000 temperature data and basically found the same trend as the NOAA folks using high quality data from satellites and Argo floats, etc.

    1. And it bears mentioning that Berkeley Earth was founded by “skeptics” and has received significant money from the Charles Koch Foundation. They shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, if only out of political considerations.

      1. received significant money from the Charles Koch Foundation

        And that’s the gold standard for legitimate, non-fake information.

        *checks url*

        Oh wait…

        1. All information should be rigorously evaluated and never simply accepted on authority.

          My point is that one should take pause before assuming that Berkeley Earth is part of the “watermelon conspiracy,” because all indications would run counter to such a claim, unless they’re a pretty deep plant years in the making.

          1. You know, I normally detest watermelon-flavored candy, but I’ve had these watermelon-shaped-and-colored gum that was really good.

            I’m sorry, what was the topic, again?

    2. It’s not so much confirmation bias as it is that the whistleblower is generally more credible due to the nature of these cases.

      When publishing a study, there’s a very low risk of being called out for fraud. That’s just the way it is. It’s a hassle to do so and most scientists have way better things to do with their resources than replicating other groups’ studies in the hopes that they’ll be able to nail a colleague and ruin the colleague’s career (as well as the 3 or 4 hapless grad students on the paper).

      Blowing the whistle on something like this (publicly attaching his own name to the allegations) can have profound implications for a scientific career if you’re wrong (and in this field even if you’re right).

      TL;DR, the incentives weigh heavily toward bad/misleading science and against whistleblowing.

      1. I doubt many people presuppose fraud – it’s more likely they want to verify that a new study is competent. I work in sports analysis and when someone comes out with some new claim I’ll rush to do it myself just to make sure there’s something to it. However, if the study confirms what 97% of your peers have already been telling you – why bother to check on it?

    3. Now if Bates was promising to extent your life by two hundred years, entirely different story.

      1. We’re going to be living fulfilling lives at 200 years of age transported by self-driving cars in government-provided mild weather.

        Can’t wait to see double-centenarian Al Gore twiddling the dial on the earth’s thermostat.

        1. where did I leave my jet-pack?

    4. I believe that a lot of regulars here were already skeptics in one way or the other before this article and are not likely to be moved in one direction or other by it. Not saying it’s not a good article, it is. But you’re likely dealing with a majority of long term hardened skeptics here. Deniers, if you will. I definitely believe the climate is changing, not sure one way or other if it’s human caused, don’t think there’s much we can do, and 100% sure that there is a whole lot of rent seekers looking to profit from it, or at least get more funding.

      I also find it impossible to believe that an entity with a name like ‘Berkeley Earth group’ are totally unbiased.

    5. There’s the risk of confirmation bias, and there’s the pattern of evidence of climate scientists cooking the books to fit their precepts of which this is merely the latest. Whatever the underlying reality, NOAA and friends have beclowned themselves through their deceit and have no credibility left.

    6. researchers did an independent analysis

      Okay, I’m willing to be taught. Is there a special process that needs to be used to look at a thermometer and record the temperature? If not, why do I need a special study by a climate scientist to analyze the data? Is the average human not able to ascertain that at some given location the temperature was x at a given time and is now x+.0001?

      1. Thermometers in cities are including the heat caused by the urban heat island effect – city temperatures being as much as 5 degrees higher than those from the surrounding area. Another … Pre-1960 their volunteers (the ones that actually go out and write down the readings) took them in the late afternoons. Around 1960 they started having them take the readings first thing in the morning. So there are things that it’s acceptable to try and correct for. The big problem is that you can’t get the old raw data anymore or know just how and why they adjusted it.

        1. And that ‘big problem’ alone is sufficient to engender a high degree of skepticism.

          No true scotsman scientist ‘loses’ raw data on the scale that climate scientists have and then waves it off as unimportant.

          1. it was on the kitchen table last time I looked, I swear…

        2. Thermometers in cities are including the heat caused by the urban heat island effect

          Seems like a stupid place to record the temperature then, although, given the same time and location, either the temperature goes up or down. That is, unless there is a variability in the urban heat island effect. Seems the recording in that location is useless if that is the case.

          1. They stuck a thermometer some place decades ago and kept it there for continuity – but then things started being built around it, so the context changed even without moving. If you do move, it’s a break in the continuity and you have to start a new measurement thread.

            I’ve downloaded hourly measurements for about 500 airports in the country from Weather Underground, in some cases going back 100 years. In my hometown I saw a discontinuity around 1973. I could ask around or look it up in the microfilm of the local newspaper, but my memory is that the readings were previously taken downtown but then were moved to the airport which although only about 3 miles away is about 500 feet higher in elevation and several degrees cooler. There have been winter days when it’s raining downtown and the surrounding hills have several inches of snow. So you have to find out some average for location one, another average for location two, and then see if you can build an adjustment from one to another.

            Another example is that a 5 year daily rolling average from around 1980 until now shows Pittsburgh, BWI and Newark in nearly perfect correlation to each other, while Dulles and National are different, and done’t even agree with each other. Throughout the 80’s I believe it was Dulles that was warming while the other DC airport was cooling.

            1. I’m not a climate scientist but I do know how to do numerical analysis. Even for the past 100 years or so I don’t believe there’s a good record to work with. It looks like it was stinking hot in the 1930’s (the Dust Bowl), then it cooled until around 1980, then it warmed to around 2000, and been pretty flat since.

          2. way better than the rectal method, take my word for that…

        3. “The big problem is that you can’t get the old raw data anymore or know just how and why they adjusted it.”

          And that’s the point where credibility takes a massive hit.

      2. Reading raw data is not enough. You need to know how to correct for various factors, combine measurements from different sources and times, etc. That’s both the difficulty and where much of the controversy lies.

        What’s the average temperature of your bedroom? Near the ceiling will likely be warmer than near the floor. An outside wall, or a window, would be cooler in winter but might be warmer in summer, compared to an inside wall. Now extend that problem to determining “the average temperature of the Earth.” Not a trivial problem.

        1. Not a trivial problem, unless you collect the data, wave your hands, apply a convenient fudge factor and then throw your calculations away.

          1. No-one would be that dishonest.

            *Searches the Internet*

            Well, I’ll be damned..

        2. And if you read about Darwin Zero at WUWT, they tell how they’ve been using fewer stations and interpolating the spots in between that used to be directly measured.

    7. I don’t think its “confirmation bias” to observe that the issue of Climate Change is hopelessly compromised and that there’s basically no one – including the NOAA or IPCC or anyone else – whose statements can be taken at face value.

      Basically, i see no reason to take anything seriously until its been out there for 10 years, scrutinized from a dozen differnet directions and is repeatedly confirmed. Until then, these studies are all so much politicized, fundraising Press Releases.

      1. Most notably, since NOAA and IPCCs data were (and AFAIK, are) being used as baseline data, all the research which may be being done by scientists who do want to undertake ‘reliable’ research, are ALSO compromised.

        The challenge here is figuring out whose research is being conducted honestly AND is not directly or indirectly tainted by NOAA and IPCC content. My guess, having come up thru’ earth science and on the periphery of climate science, is that many of these potentially ‘honest’ scientists may be unknowingly using tainted data from one or both of those sources.

    8. Fair warning, Ron, but so much of the behavior of the ‘warmists’ reeks of those who are only into it to glom government money. Actions – not words – matter, especially since the evasiveness of those who promulgate AGW/CC refuse outright to provide the ‘adjustments’ they’ve done. (As illustrated in Rhywun’s linked article).

      What’s even more telling is the hostile reception to ‘lukewarmers; such as Bjorn Lomborg. If AGW is a problem, he presented rational, doable, and cost effective solutions in Cool It, and was treated as a pariah for not toeing the standard AGW line.

      1. What’s even more telling is the hostile reception to ‘lukewarmers

        Exactly.

        nothing undoes the appearance of official-consensus like the way they feel the need to viciously crush even mild-criticism of the most extreme assumptions. “EVERYONE AGREES” they repeatedly shout, drowning out the voices of people who say, “yes, but….”

    9. The Romans pushed grape cultivation and wine making as far north as the modern French/German border. They also grew grapes in England. This would be the Roman Warm Period.

      The grapes cultivation and wine making receded to southern France with the pull back of the Romans (which happens to be a cool period).

      Grape and wine moved back up beyond the French/German border around 1000 AD (coinciding with the Medieval Warm Period).

      German wine making suffered terribly as Europe descended into the Little Ice Age, and has not fully recovered since then.

      One could use this to argue that both the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period were both warmer than not (which does line up with ice core data) but is completely at odds with the provably dishonest fuckwits pushing AGW.

    10. Ron,

      Before you lecture the board on confirmation bias, could you for once admit that AGW is itself a giant exercise in confirmation bias? There are two things that are undeniable.

      1. That there is not a linear relatinship between CO2 levels and temperature

      2. CO2 is neither the most potent warming gas nor anything close to the biggest driver of climate.

      Yet, at some point the AGW advocates noticed that the earth was warming at what they considered an unnatural rate. That claim alone is highly debatable but lets assume it is true. They then theorized that rising CO2 levels due to human activity was the cause of this warming. Since there CO2 is not the biggest driver of climate and there is not even a remote linear relationship between CO2 levels and observed global temperature, for their theory to be true, there had to be some kind of amplification mechanism whereby CO2 when it reached certain levels suddenly had a much larger effect on climate than it would normally have.

      1. AGW proponents have since spent about the last 40 years doing two things; trying to reconstruct early global temperatures so as to establish that the current warming is unnatural and out of the norm and identify and understand the various amplification processes that give CO2 such an over sized effect on climate.

        Note the two assumptions behind the entire thing. First that if current temperatures are rising faster than at times seen in the past, it must be “unnatural” and have an external cause. Second, if a mechanism can be found to explain how CO2 can have an out sized effect on the climate, those processes are occurring now and explain the current rise in temperature, if there is one.

        That is a textbook example of confirmation bias. They are assuming their theory is true and then assuming all observations are properly interpreted to support their assumptions.

      2. Per laboratory experiment, the relationship between CO? concentration and ambient temperature is about 1.1?C per doubling of the concentration, all else being held equal. To use simple numbers, let’s say it starts at 100 ppm. One doubling, from 100 to 200 would make it go up by 1.1?C. To go up a second 1.1?C it would have to go from 200 to 400. A third 1.1?C would need to have it go up to 800 ppm. That makes it a logarithmic relationship.

        That’s all fine and dandy in the lab. However all else is not held equal in the real world. Everything is a constantly changing set of reactions and re-reactions to all kinds of different stimuli. Some enhance an effect. Some decrease it. But what we want is what is the net total of all possible feedbacks and we don’t even know what a lot of them are. We’re constantly finding things that we didn’t know about before that affect the overall climate. The catastrophists use a multiplier of as much as 6 times the effect of CO? alone. Others look at the data and say probably a little over 1.

        1. I mean between CO2 concentration and terrestrial temperature. There is no linear relationship because all things are not equal in the real world.

          And yes, even if you find a positive feedback loop, there is nothing to say there are not negative ones you don’t know about. It doesn’t prove you know what is going on. They only assume it does because they are engaging in massive confirmation bias.

    11. Really, Ron? And you don’t have a problem with a study claiming warming that uses the moddle of an el nino as its endpoint? What was that about confirmation bias?

    12. When this paper first came out. Skeptics mentioned how the dataset utilized ship data to inflate the temperature numbers.

      The information presented by someone in the know when the dataset was made corroborates that the skeptics skepticism was correct.

  11. *yawn*

    Another day, another politicized deceit. If the science is so settled, how come stories like this keep coming up regularly? I mean, Bill Nye told me this debate is over and it’s a done deal. So there should be no need for even the appearance of data manipulation, since the science is so bulletproof.

    1. “Another day, another politicized deceit. If the science is so settled, how come stories like this keep coming up regularly?”

      Fake news and deniers, of course. I mean no one would naturally be concerned that a bunch of globalist elites preaching fire and brimstone and demanding trillions of dollars in ‘protection’ money are not to be trusted. Right?

    2. Not only that, but Bill Nye wants deniers thrown into cages.

      1. The Mechanical Engineering Guy?

        1. Yeah, but he freaking loves science, man!

          1. he’s a science guy…says right there on his TV show, so it must be true

  12. “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

    Obviously, the observations could use some work.

    1. Obviously, the underlying base data is at fault. Call the UEA and ask for some help from their best statisticians.

  13. This is one more time in which the part of the Ike speech on the military-industrial complex bears further review, the part that warned about an unholy alliance between govt and science in which grant money became the proxy for inquiry.

  14. The science is settled: Tom Brady is the GOAT.

    1. Giselle’s going to be pissed when she finds you in Tom’s closet.

      1. Good, we’ll use her anger to help re-inflate us.

    2. I am informed that a lot of people were staring at the GOAT last night.

      *shudders; pulls tinfoil hat down tightly onto head*

  15. Bates’ charges about data manipulation are serious and must be properly investigated (although how to do that dispassionately and objectively in the politicized field of climate science is not at all clear).

    I’m not sure there’s any way to do it, unfortunately. Either way someone’s ox is getting gored, and/or someone’s going to lose out on grant money

    1. Tax authorities, internal and external auditors are always suspicious of someone rigging financial numbers for illegal gains. We call them a lot of things, but never “deniers”.

      So why are those skeptical about weather data used to justify $billions of funds transfers and massive interference in the world’s energy economy tagged as Hitler apologists?

      1. Leftists love pointing out conflicts of interest and suspicious financial incentives when it makes their opponents look bad, but it’s truly disturbing how easily they ignore these same issues within their own movement.

        You’ll never hear leftists whine about the government giving tons of money to climate “scientists” or “green energy” companies.

        You’ll also never hear them complain about public sector unions donating HUGE sums of money to Democrats, who then support big government and oppose privatization of anything, thereby creating and preserving more streams of revenue for AFSCME, SEIU, the American Federation of Teachers, and other government “worker” unions.

  16. I guess we can call him “Hot Karl!”

  17. “Bates’ charges about data manipulation are serious and must be properly investigated (although how to do that dispassionately and objectively in the politicized field of climate science is not at all clear).”

    Not putting scare quotes around “whistleblower” seems like a good place to start.

    1. Perhaps we’ll refer to him as Master Bates from hereon.

  18. RE: Climate Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data to Fool Politicians and Public, Claims ‘Whistleblower’
    Another update on the ‘settled science’ of climate change

    In the 1970’s it was global cooling. We will all freeze to death if we don’t have a billion dollars right here, right now said the scientists.
    Then in the 1990’s it was global warming. We will all melt, die of thirst and the oceans will flood all the countries if we don’t have a half a trillion dollars right here, right now said the scientists.
    Today, it is climate change say the scientists who demand a trillion dollars right here, right now or we will all die a horrible death.
    The word we’re all looking for here is “credibility.”
    And the scientists and their gullible and naive sycophant don’t have any.

    1. Yeah, but do you realize how smart you look if during a friendly discussion about climate change, you just say ‘Well, I guess I’m going to have to side with the scientists’. Really, that is apparently what passes for intelligence these days.

      1. Can’t I just have a like button instead? That’s a totes easier to way to signal.

        1. I’m going with a spiny thing, when ever someone states an opinion I’ll hit my little spiny button and however it comes out I’ll use that…like, dislike, no opinion…should cover all possibilities and I can claim that the spiny thing is NEVER wrong…

    2. The global cooling scare of the 1970s was a media creation. There were some scientists who thought the Earth was headed in that direction, but there was still far more peer-reviewed literature on global warming.

      1. Paul Ehrlich was one of those pushing cooling back in the 70’s, and now he’s claiming the warming proves him correct.

        1. I guess not being able to tell hot from cold must be a pretty big deficit to overcome, I mean mentally….

  19. “The goal of 2015 Science study, according to the Mail, was to convince policy makers and the public of the need to adopt what would become the Paris Agreement on climate change that aims to keep global temperature from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.”

    It’s Plato’s “noble” lie.

    People have been ruled this way since before Plato. We’re getting better at sussing this stuff out, though.

    Meanwhile, the alarmists aren’t doing themselves any favors by framing a guilty man. That’s how OJ got away. Once you start framing somebody, people start thinking he isn’t guilty.

    1. Seems more like a regular lie.

      Today’s version of the Noble Lie is the Social Contract.

    1. Really, the warmists shoud just tell BLM that if the climate changes some more, whitey will get more privileged. That should get them to breaking some storefront windows and setting a few cars on fire. That will teach those deniers.

            1. oh god no, I hope not

              1. I have the good sense not to post links from that website. For shame, sir. For shame.

                1. DON’T JUDGE ME

                  *peruses latest copy of The Retarded Feminist*

          1. Why didn’t I just assume this? It’s almost automatic these days that if you can think of something dumb the left will do, they fool you by doing something as dumb as… dumber than anyone can imagine.

          2. you won’t believe #3…

    2. but it’s only February…

  20. Ron how is any data pre-1990 or so useful to do a comparison to now? Unless they have the same equipment, same number and location of points taking readings at same time of day

    I have always wondered. Like what makes the 1870s to 1950s data valid.

    1. Satellite data came into existence in the 70’s and is generally the most robust of all the sources. Much more so than weather stations which require individual calibration for each station.

      1. Robust, in general, yes because it allowed greater consistency in the collection of data, and some improvement in selecting appropriate sampling sites, but inferior for some metrics such as rainfall, insolation etc.

        1. Correct

      2. While the accuracy of the satellite data is good, the problem is it started in the 70’s. The long term trends show that as a low point in the pattern of the solar cycle model (in line with the global cooling crisis of the day), so an obvious warming trend would appear from that point in such a case. The land a sea thermometer data sets go back further but have muddier error bars (even before MOAA starts “adjusting” them). So it’s easy for someone who wants to show warming to drop the “unreliable” terrestrial data sets which show a warm 1930s and use the good data that hasn’t been collected over a long enough time to stand alone.

        1. See my question is the people recording data from saying pre 1950 or so….why would they care about how many decimal places or number of locations or points that are used now? I imagine it is like i would do and just look at thermometer and go well it appears to be about 80F.

          I can’t imagine these people a hundred years ago had the foresight to collect valid data that could be compared apples to apples now.

          1. That doesn’t make the data any less valid. It does, however make the assertions of averages out to X decimal places farcical.

          2. People have understood precision and accuracy for a very long time, and until recently, those people also appreciated that some instrumentation is only capable of a certain degree of accuracy, which means that there’s an upper limit to the precision they should be recording to.

            Hence, (theoretically) It would be foolish to accept the precision (and maybe even the accuracy) of a set of weather station observations from Eastern France between 1914 and 1918, for a number of reasons. UEA’s “corrected” baseline data regularly quoted temperatures to two decimal places in their homogenized series. I’ve yet to be shown the experimental and statistical justification for that level of precision.

            1. The justification is “the change gets swallowed up in truthful error bands, so we have to make it look like it shows what we’re claiming to keep getting our money!”

    2. “Like what makes the 1870s to 1950s data valid.”

      Careful application of valid corrections and adjustments. Lots of ’em.

      Or “fudging”. Take your pick.

      1. It also helps if you also lose the raw data, because audits.

    3. They generally tried to keep any station in the same place once it’s in operation. Unfortunately that “same” place that used to be in the middle of a field is now in an asphalt parking lot.

      They used to have their volunteers take their readings at the same time every day, in the late afternoon. Around 1960 they changed it to taking them first thing in the morning.

      The lag time in getting a min and max temperature is less in an electronic thermometer than using a mercury one so you get slightly different readings.

      Bottom line is, you got what you’ve got and all the wishing in the world isn’t going to change it.

      They’ve got a new set of stations going up now. Put up in places where there is little likelihood of man made changes affecting the environment of the stations. Using multiple and redundant instruments. Completely automatic so there’s no issue with human error. There’s also a class of free floating ocean buoys called Argo which not only read surface temperature, but dive and take readings up to 2 km down and then surface and report. Again, completely automatic.

      While that’s good news for the future, it doesn’t help us at all for past data.

  21. Ugh. I see the “skeptics” are out in force. Read the Berkeley Earth article linked above. It totally debunks this “whistleblowing”. No data has been faked or manipulated. The results have been confirmed by further independent study. No matter how much you try, you cannot make the reality go away. Whether it’s raw data, homogenized data or upside-down pineapple cake data, the trend of rapid warming remains.

    1. Whether it’s raw data, homogenized data or upside-down pineapple cake data, the trend of rapid warming remains.

      If the “raw data” in question is ground station data, then actually there’s no “trend of rapid warming” over multiple deacdes. The only “raw data” that shows a substantial warming trend over multiple decades is the satellite data, although it only has a little less than five decades’ worth of history.

      No data has been faked or manipulated

      Even if the ultimate conclusion is correct, that there is a warming trend and that trend is primarily driven by human activity, this statement is false. Data manipulation and its lesser cousin poor data stewardship have been demonstrated. Whatever you may think of the intentions of those involved, more transparency is always the answer.

      1. ….pineapple

    2. You mean another report based on the same made up data they lost when people asked for it so they could audit it?

    3. Re: Hal_10000,

      Read the Berkeley Earth article linked above. It totally debunks this “whistleblowing”.

      How does the article debunk the whistleblowing? There’s a whistlelower, and a whistle was blown. If you want to argue that the article debunks the idea that the data manipulators manipulated the data they said they manipulated, then say that.

      No data has been faked or manipulated.

      Nobody’s arguing that the data was faked. Don’t say the data wasn’t manipulated when the manipulators confirmed they manipulated the data, or “adjusted it”. The whistleblower is merely saying that the data wasn’t manipulated to make it more accurate or to standardize it but to fool gullible politicians and the Angry Volcano God worshippers.

    4. No matter how much you try, you cannot make the reality go away.

      BRB gotta go get a new irony meter. You busted mine.

  22. the trend of rapid warming remains.

    Short term fluctuation; aka “noise”

  23. This is all useless prognosticating because we are long overdue for a massive volcanic eruption and the resulting volcanic winter of several years. The increased temperature might actually save us. My money’s on Katla in Iceland, which is currently in its longest dormancy in history. Several other giant ones could go off soon, too. A few of them will throw us into another Little Ice Age.

    1. +1 Yellowstone caldera

      1. That would be orders of magnitude worse than just a “big” volcano going off and cooling us down by a couple of degrees. Yellowstone’s a VEI 8 (Volcanic Explosivity Index). No VEI 8 volcano has erupted anywhere within human history and very few VEI 7s. The only one we know for sure was Tambora in 1815. Lake Taupo probably was and Thera may have been. Krakatoa was “only” a 6. Pinatubo was a 5 and Mt St Helens was only a 4. Each level has at least ten times the explosivity (material ejected) as the one below. That means a VEI 8 is 100 times bigger than a 6, so try to picture 100 Krakatoas or 10,000 Mt St Helens going off at once. That would be Yellowstone.

        1. one really big earth fart….

  24. as & Lwhmtl: Thermometer data with anything like global coverage starts in the late 19th century – but all temperature data needs to be adjusted to take into account things like changes in instruments, changes in instrument location, changes in local landscape, e.g., urban heat island effects, changes in how sea temperatures measured, e.g., canvas buckets over the side, intake valves, how deep, etc., and changes in the times at which measurements are taken, and so on. So there’s lots of ways the adjustments can go wrong.

    I tend to trust the satellite data more but that series begins in 1979. For longer term trends, the Berkeley Earth analysis is very open – they publish all of their code and raw data, so other researchers can check their work.

    1. Maybe the appropriate ‘adjustment’ increases the error bars so far that the data is meaningless. How do you ‘correct’ for the miscalibration of a barometer on James Cook’s HMS Endeavour between 1768 and 1771? Answer, if you’re honest, is that you can’t.

      The very act of attempting to ‘correct’ that kind of data invalidates it, because – like almost all historical data – possibly up until about 1970 – has no direct comparator to use as a standard.

      Does the data have value? Yes, if limited. Does the corrected data have value? Maybe, but probably LESS than the un-corrected data.

    2. Thermometer data with anything like global coverage starts in the late 19th century – but all temperature data needs to be adjusted to take into account things like changes in instruments, changes in instrument location, changes in local landscape, e.g., urban heat island effects, changes in how sea temperatures measured, e.g., canvas buckets over the side, intake valves, how deep, etc., and changes in the times at which measurements are taken, and so on. So there’s lots of ways the adjustments can go wrong.

      To know how much to adjust, you have to fully understand how much those things effected measurements. And I am very skeptical that is the case. Just how much does the growth of a city out around a measurement station affect its measurements? We assume they know that. And maybe they do. But it is equally possible, and given their track record probably likely, that they determined how much those things affected measurements by looking at how much the measurements deviated from what they were expecting. I.E. they assumed the measurements were wrong and determined by how much by assuming their theory was true. You know, engaged in confirmation bias like you are always accusing everyone who doubts this stuff of doing.

      1. Last I read they were using the population change as the main input to urban heat island adjustments. However many cities have been proven to actually heat up far more than their population change would suggest. Since all that isn’t getting adjusted out, it causes a spurious adjusted temperature increase.

        I don’t know that’s still what they’re using or how much they’ve refined the algorithm, but that’s what it was for a long time.

    3. Given the number of careers that have been ruined by questioning AGW orthodoxy and AGW proponents absolute conviction that anyone who voices reservations is a heretic on par with a Holocaust denier, it is quite a stretch to call any work done in the field “independent”.

      Ron, your cultural biases and your biases towards credentialism really show in this area.

      1. Yep. And the whistleblower in this case has a boatload of credentials. A former high level government scientist working inside NOAA for decades.

    4. Not so. There are a variety of rather well documented temperature proxies. They are not perfect, and are often valid only for the location at which the samples originated, but they are based on reproducible physical chemistry measurements, and some stretch back even hundreds of millions of years

  25. “the Daily Mail article failed to mention his study which found that the revised NOAA temperature data are accurate. ”

    Ahh, the Daily Mail. Ron’s go to source on all matters climactic.

    1. m: You do understand that I was merely pointing out that it’s crappy journalism not to mention countervailing information, especially in articles purportedly dealing with scientific matters.

      1. It’s the Daily Mail. It’s crappy journalism from start to finish. Why waste your time?

  26. Lost in all of this is any discussion of what global warming would mean for mankind if the theory is true. Historically, warmer times have been better times for humanity. I still fall to see how a world wide average temperature increase of 2 degrees could be anything but a net positive for our species.

    1. This is my point. Why wouldnt warmer be better

      1. Because Gaia has given us the proper climate and anything else is ungrateful Sin. You really want her to open up and swallow you into a chasm don’t you

      2. “Why wouldnt warmer be better”

        Depends how the extra warmth is manifested. An August heat spell just a few degrees warmer and a few days longer than the plants are capable of handling, and bye bye wheat crop. Good for the farmer who rakes in some insurance money without having go to the trouble of raking in any wheat. Bad for anyone who eats wheat.

        1. This can happen with or without a higher global average temp.

          I think it would open more areas for agriculture

          1. You’re not growing anything without decent soil. A warmer climate isn’t enough.

    2. ” I still fall to see how a world wide average temperature increase of 2 degrees could be anything but a net positive for our species.”

      Because you really don’t understand the meaning of ‘average.’ Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean whatever the temperature is now, everywhere plus 2 degrees. It could mean that but it could also mean longer and more intense heat waves. That can add up to dead plants and animals, even though the temperatures throughout the rest of the year are pleasant and tolerable.

      1. Yes, I’m to ignorant to understand advanced concepts like “average”.
        Catastrophic warming in the Sahara desert doesn’t nullify the positive effects on global crop yields or the natural resources opened up in the Artic circle.
        But keep being an insufferable jerk, because that’s always the best way to convince others of the merits of your arguments.

        1. “Yes, I’m to ignorant to understand advanced concepts like “average”.

          I figured as much. I’ve tried to explain how increased average world temperatures may not be a positive. If you still fail to understand, just ask me or any other insufferable jerk.

  27. Not mentioned is that warming /oceans/ are evidence against AGW theory. CO2 warms the air. Ocean warming is a function of a warmer Sun.

    1. Um – there *is* air above the water as well and heat transfers between gas and liquid just fine. Warmer air = warmer water even if the sun stays exactly the same. The converse is also true. Warmer water = warmer air.

      1. Serious question: how long would it take for warmer air to cause a significant increase in water temperature (recognizing I’m using vague terms).

        1. Almost impossible to say. The latent heat capacity of water is much higher than air, so the amount of energy it takes to heat a cubic meter of air is far less than you’d need to heat a cubic meter of water. Then you have the issue of thermal stratification in water and air, and in the case of water, some of the deeper ocean reservoirs are not ‘turned over’ in centuries.

          The problem with this kind of analysis is that to some degree, you have to expect that the whole system will equilibrate sufficiently to be able to talk about a whole ocean or more, along with a sizable if arbitrary unit of the atmosphere, and that’s hard to do. The lack of eqilibration itself is responsible for measurable localized changes in climate.

          1. And that issue of oceanic stratification is very important. Given that algae are significant sources of CO2, what would happen if a significant proportion of that cold, deep, saline ocean water was to break through to the surface? What impact would that have on algal populations?

            Which brings me to my last (I promise) point. Any climate change models which hand-wave their way past the impact of the oceans, and ocean sampling, are probably not worth the electrons it takes to type ‘global warming’, because the oceans are by far the largest reservoirs and sources of CO2, methane and water vapor, the three greenhouse gases we’re meant to be worrying about.

            1. OK thanks.

        2. Considering that for El Ni?o the water actually warms the ait and not the other way around I’d say it’d take a really really long time.

    2. That is interesting. I wonder if the fact that the magnetic field has been on the decline for the last hundred and fifty years is increasing the amount solar radiation that is getting to the surface of the earth. Thereby driving temperatures more than any of the AGW related factors.

      Wait, no that can’t be it, I can’t get my preferred redistributionist policies enacted with that sort of talk.

      1. I am actually curious about the magnetic field thing, by the by.

        1. There was some work on this (and presumably still is) from about 20 years ago. The expected change was (IIRC) not that great; most of the radiation that Earth is subject to isn’t deflected much by magnetic fields, but I seem to remember that there was an indirect effect, because of a change in Earth’s albedo.

          I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember a lot of very complex (largely speculative) math.

          1. Fair enough. Thank you for the insight.

  28. There is no field of science that has EVER been completely “settled”. True scientists continually question and test hypotheses. For a long time Newtonian Physics were the “settled science” then along came Einstein. Electrical current used to “flow” opposite to the travel of electrons. The model of atoms has changed several times. The “closest” to the current model is the Bohr description.

    No science is “settled”. People that make such declarations are ignorant of the truth of science.

    1. “No science is “settled”.

      But funding of science is settled, politically. Your True Scientist may be keen of spending millions of dollars trying to prove the existence of luminiferous aether, but those who disperse the dollars have to consider how much value such an enterprise is likely to yield. ‘Value’ is not a word that has much meaning in science.

      I don’t see a true scientist getting too worked up over the increase of temperature between 1998 and 2015. Or that the observed data doesn’t match the models. I’d be very surprised and suspicious if their models could accurately predict something so nebulous and contentious as ‘average global temperature.’

  29. “Bates’ charges about data manipulation are serious and must be properly investigated (although how to do that dispassionately and objectively in the politicized field of climate science is not at all clear).”

    For this reason, climate science is no longer science.

  30. Ron, thank you for making sure that this info (Bates’ claims) reach a wider audience. If true, they merit investigation with the full power of law.

    Fudging the conclusions is one thing, fudging the original data is quite another.

  31. Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past

    #FakeScience

  32. The best argument the Climate Catastrophists have is that they were completely wrong when they said the Science was Settled, and that it only took them a decade and a half to be able to *calculate* the global temperature properly from actual measurements, so that we should now totally trust their *predictions* about global temperature into the future.

  33. Why the scare quotes on whistleblower?

  34. The Daily Mail? Americans actually read and debate over the Daily Fucking Mail? The worst, most reactionary, tabloid out of all the tabloid filth that proliferate in the UK?

    For shame.

  35. Wow, so your science writer gets his information from The Daily Mail. That’s a relief, I thought perhaps he was a hack who, you know, got his information from those peer-reviewed scientific journals. Good to know he is using a quality publication like the Daily Mail to interpret the science for him since it is probably too complex to understand for himself. Thanks for the really high quality journalism displayed here.

  36. BEEN THERE DONE THAT NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS JUST MOVEON.ORG! Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

  37. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here…
    ………….. http://www.cash-review.com

  38. “Bates’ charges about data manipulation are serious and must be properly investigated (although how to do that dispassionately and objectively in the politicized field of climate science is not at all clear).”

    Oh FFS Ron. the way to investigate and eliminate these types of charges is to publish the data openly. But that is not the norm with warming proponents. Mann is a leading example. NOAA also has shown quite an interesting lack of scientific rigor in their ‘correcting’ of the historic record. They wipe old data and replace it with new. That is essentially the antithesis of good science.

  39. The Daily Mail, the world’s foremost purveyor of scientific journalism.

  40. The thing to keep in mind is that the field of Science has always been prey to political fads, outright fraud, backstabbing, overinflated egos, and so on. ALWAYS. A lot of what is taught as History of Science by non-specialists is utter bushwa that buries the conflicts and often rewards the most successful frauds. My late Father was a Professor of the History of Science and over the years I got a lot of this over the dinner table. As an example, Antoine Lavoisier (routinely called “the father of modern chemistry”) grabbed a hell of a lot of creditmthat rightly belonged to other people.

    ‘Climate Science’ isn’t an abberation, it’s just that the backbiting and fraud are a tiny bit more exposd than usual.

    1. You’re correct here, but could also add, counter-intuitively, that the presence of fraud and abuse does not necessarily mean the science is bogus. Both Ptolemy and Mendel, to name but two scientists the geeks here should know, falsified data but their science was correct in the end. It’s an error to dismiss the science because the scientist is lying.

      1. The difference between the cases is that Mendel fudging his numbers meant very little practically to anyone (at the time). OTOH, the climate issue is being used a tool to shape public policy at the highest level.

        Call me a geek (I am), but there was an excellent line on a Star Trek episode in which the Captain tells the ensign that “your highest duty is to the truth”.

  41. Nice cherry you picked there! Yep, the glaciers will regrow and the oceans will cool and shrink any second now…

    1. nice theory you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it….

  42. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  43. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  44. Global warming is a hoax. The so-called scientists keep getting caught manipulating the data. The deceptions are hard to hide, but the “scientists” hide the raw data to make it difficult to uncover the truth.

  45. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  46. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  47. I thought we were done with this “he said, she said” stuff on global warming. Ron, when are you going to get back to tackling positive vs negative consequences of global warming, and what, if anything, government can effectively do about it? Or better yet, what the market can effectively do about it? You know, libertarian-roots stuff?

  48. Anyone can visit realclimatescience.com and see up-close exposure of bureaucrat data tampering fraud masquerading as science. The operator, Rudy Heller, gives away an app so you can download gubmint datasets yourself and graph them with no tampering. Jo Nova in Australia runs another whistleblower site with a warmer fraud detection manual in many languages. It’s a replay of christian fanatics claiming prohibition meant prosperity in the 1920s, or antinuclear dupes saying surrender to communism is peace in the 1980s

  49. Anyone can visit realclimatescience.com and see up-close exposure of bureaucrat data tampering fraud masquerading as science. The operator, Rudy Heller, gives away an app so you can download gubmint datasets yourself and graph them with no tampering. Jo Nova in Australia runs another whistleblower site with a warmer fraud detection manual in many languages. It’s a replay of christian fanatics claiming prohibition meant prosperity in the 1920s, or antinuclear dupes saying surrender to communism is peace in the 1980s

  50. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  51. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

  52. Colton . true that Richard `s story is inconceivable… on monday I got a brand new BMW 5-series after I been earnin $5174 this last 4 weeks and-just over, 10-k last-month . it’s realy the coolest job Ive ever done . I began this 5 months ago and almost immediately brought home minimum $82, per hour . check this link right here now

    ……………. http://www.Buzzpay40.com

  53. So settled science? Not hardly. In February 2016, Nature Climate Change published an article by a prominent group of researchers led by Canadian climate scientist John Fyfe that concluded that global warming hiatus is real and thus strongly contradicted Karl’s 2015 Science study

    “Settled science” referred to whether Earth is warming because of greenhouse emissions. It is.

    February 2016… oh yeah, one year ago: good that you took notice, just in time as Drumpf destroys the EPA, and ignore the existence of AGW. And what did John Fyfe conclude?

    http://www.nature.com/news/glo…..in-1.19414

    “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

    Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

    Settled science. Understand what it means, and stop pretending that you are not a denialist, Ronnie

  54. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.