Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

[Sunsettommy]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

 

[edthecynic]

Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.

Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Proof the Right will NEVER admit the truth!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.

Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Proof the Right will NEVER admit the truth!!!

No it is YOU who has no idea how badly snookered you are on this.

I gave you hints, you ignore them.

Hint: the two best and most modern data sources have been completely ignored, that effectively destroys Karl's absurd paper.

 

[edthecynic]

Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.

Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

So you knew all along that it has only been the deniers who have used fake data and accused the honest scientists of using fake data to muddy the waters.

And Christy had no choice.
BTW, when the UAH data was corrected it matched the ground station data almost exactly!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Proof the Right will NEVER admit the truth!!!

No it is YOU who has no idea how badly snookered you are on this.

I gave you hints, you ignore them.

Hint: the two best and most modern data sources have been completely ignored, that effectively destroys Karl's absurd paper.

Says the sources who lied about what Dr Bates actually said!
You have no credibility.

 

[jc456]

It's confirmed. Scientists lied to us. And the liberal climate change tree-huggers bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic. Isn't it? The rest of us know better. Why? Because we don't have an agenda. We are interested in the truth. That's all. Well, here's some truth for you climate change nuts. You'll probably choke on it, but that's OK.

And the best part is that this is a government press release, so you can't even try to discredit the source. BWAHAHAHA!

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Not this lie again!
Can't you liars come up with new lies instead of repeating the same discredited lies over and over again???????

What lie is that?

Hey man ...... the concept of objective truth does not exist in their vocabulary. It is the way of the snowflake.....

The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."

Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.

The red flag for people was the investigation conducted by insiders following the East Anglia debacle. Screamed fraud s0n..... a big reason why the "consensus" science is having no impact in the real world.

and the mere fact that mother nature isn't corroborating their faked data

 

[Sunsettommy]

Whatever you say s0n.....data rigging by organizations associated with the religion is very well documented.

Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

So you knew all along that it has only been the deniers who have used fake data and accused the honest scientists od using fake data to muddy the waters.

And Christy had no choice.
BTW, when the UAH data was corrected it matched the ground station data almost exactly!!!

No it was an unknown problem that Dr. Means brought up, which was duly noted by Dr. Christy. DR. Means wrote a paper on the error that shows UAH had a cooling bias in it, which was CORRECTED after DR. Means pointed it out. I know all this because I READ that paper when it came out and saw the acknowledgement by Dr. Christy.

Here is the 2005 paper from SCIENCE,

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

1. Carl A. Mears,
2. Frank J. Wentz

Science 02 Sep 2005

Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

LINK

There is no evidence that they were trying to hide errors or didn't correct them after Dr. Mears published paper.

Meanwhile UAH is using the most modern stable satellite that have ZERO drift errors to worry about, while RSS are using older Satellte that does have drift errors in it that has to be corrected. Since we don't know what the exact error is, a small bias could be creeping in.

UAH is currently probably the more reliable source for Satellite data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Proof the Right will NEVER admit the truth!!!

No it is YOU who has no idea how badly snookered you are on this.

I gave you hints, you ignore them.

Hint: the two best and most modern data sources have been completely ignored, that effectively destroys Karl's absurd paper.

Says the sources who lied about what Dr Bates actually said!
You have no credibility.

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

You have ignored it several times now.

Stop your lying.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Meanwhile you have proved to me you have no idea what the controversy is really about, even when I give you hints about it, you ignore them completely.

You are pathetic at this.

 

[edthecynic]

Documented as being done by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. The Right have only made dis-proven accusations of data rigging, like Christy and Spencer got caught doing, against the honest climate scientists to deflect from Christy and Spencer getting caught red handed cooking the satellite data.

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

So you knew all along that it has only been the deniers who have used fake data and accused the honest scientists od using fake data to muddy the waters.

And Christy had no choice.
BTW, when the UAH data was corrected it matched the ground station data almost exactly!!!

No it was an unknown problem that Dr. Means brought up, which was duly noted by Dr. Christy. DR. Means wrote a paper on the error that shows UAH had a cooling bias in it, which was CORRECTED after DR. Means pointed it out. I know all this because I READ that paper when it came out and saw the acknowledgement by Dr. Christy.

Here is the 2005 paper from SCIENCE,

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

1. Carl A. Mears,
2. Frank J. Wentz

Science 02 Sep 2005

Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

LINK

There is no evidence that they were trying to hide errors or didn't correct them after Dr. Mears published paper.

Meanwhile UAH is using the most modern stable satellite that have ZERO drift errors to worry about, while RSS are using older Satellte that does have drift errors in it that has to be corrected. Since we don't know what the exact error is, a small bias could be creeping in.

UAH is currently probably the more reliable source for Satellite data.

Your own post confirms what I posted earlier.
Thank you.
To believe that Christy and Spencer at UAH did not fudge the data, you would have to believe that the two, who were billed by deniers as the foremost experts on satellite data, were BOTH too STUPID to know what the correct sign was for correcting diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic calculations in the field!!!!!!

UAH data is not now and has never been more reliable than other satellite data and ground station data.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates | John Abraham

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

 

[edthecynic]

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

Yeah, Bates made it cleat he was not happy with how the data was ARCHIVED!!!!!!
Not, as the OP's lie claimed, that the data was manipulated!!!
But you knew that already!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Suuure.....................

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

So you knew all along that it has only been the deniers who have used fake data and accused the honest scientists od using fake data to muddy the waters.

And Christy had no choice.
BTW, when the UAH data was corrected it matched the ground station data almost exactly!!!

No it was an unknown problem that Dr. Means brought up, which was duly noted by Dr. Christy. DR. Means wrote a paper on the error that shows UAH had a cooling bias in it, which was CORRECTED after DR. Means pointed it out. I know all this because I READ that paper when it came out and saw the acknowledgement by Dr. Christy.

Here is the 2005 paper from SCIENCE,

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

1. Carl A. Mears,
2. Frank J. Wentz

Science 02 Sep 2005

Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

LINK

There is no evidence that they were trying to hide errors or didn't correct them after Dr. Mears published paper.

Meanwhile UAH is using the most modern stable satellite that have ZERO drift errors to worry about, while RSS are using older Satellte that does have drift errors in it that has to be corrected. Since we don't know what the exact error is, a small bias could be creeping in.

UAH is currently probably the more reliable source for Satellite data.

Your own post confirms what I posted earlier.
Thank you.
To believe that Christy and Spencer at UAH did not fudge the data, you would have to believe that the two, who were billed by deniers as the foremost experts on satellite data, were BOTH too STUPID to know what the correct sign was for correcting diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic calculations in the field!!!!!!

UAH data is not now and has never been more reliable than other satellite data and ground station data.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates | John Abraham

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

Gawd even after I gave you the source you STILL ignored it!

Here it is the table of past corrections, maybe you will finally see it!

Look at the table in the link.

"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]

NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[11]"

Wikipedia LINK

You have NEVER showed they deliberately fudged the data. I showed that they TWICE corrected the errors when they were informed by DR. Mears, as clearly shown in the link.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

Yeah, Bates made it cleat he was not happy with how the data was ARCHIVED!!!!!!
Not, as the OP's lie claimed, that the data was manipulated!!!
But you knew that already!

You obviously do NOT understand the scope of his objections, here I quote him WHY his complaint is relevant to the Karl paper:

"Figure 3. Data flow for surface temperature products described in K15 Science paper. Green indicates operational datasets having passed ORR and archived at time of publication. Red indicates experimental datasets never subject to ORR and never archived.

It is clear that the actual nearly-operational release of GHCN-Mv4 beta is significantly different from the version GHCNM3.X used in K15. Since the version GHCNM3.X never went through any ORR, the resulting dataset was also never archived, and it is virtually impossible to replicate the result in K15.

At the time of the publication of the K15, the final step in processing the NOAAGlobalTempV4 had been approved through an ORR, but not in the K15 configuration. It is significant that the current operational version of NOAAGlobalTempV4 uses GHCN-M V3.3.0 and does not include the ISTI dataset used in the Science paper. The K15 global merged dataset is also not archived nor is it available in machine-readable form. This is why the two boxes in figure 3 are colored red.

The lack of archival of the GHCN-M V3.X and the global merged product is also in violation of Science policy on making data available [link]. This policy states: “Climate data. Data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases”. Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?"

bolding mine

You finally get it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's confirmed. Scientists lied to us. And the liberal climate change tree-huggers bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic. Isn't it? The rest of us know better. Why? Because we don't have an agenda. We are interested in the truth. That's all. Well, here's some truth for you climate change nuts. You'll probably choke on it, but that's OK.

And the best part is that this is a government press release, so you can't even try to discredit the source. BWAHAHAHA!

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Not this lie again!
Can't you liars come up with new lies instead of repeating the same discredited lies over and over again???????

What lie is that?

Hey man ...... the concept of objective truth does not exist in their vocabulary. It is the way of the snowflake.....

The Right lies their lying scum asses off, and then accuse the honest people, who are aware of their lies and call then out on their lies, of lacking "objective truth."

Your link shows two difference faces from the same man, here is from his own blog post, shows what he really thought about Dr. Karls paper, from Climate Etc.,

Climate scientists versus climate data

EXCERPT:

"Posted on February 4, 2017 | 761 Comments
by John Bates

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."

LINK

bolding mine

Its rather stunning how Karl failed to archive the very data set that 99.9% of all his assumptions are based.... Now, why would any reputable scientist destroy the very footings of his own work unless he was trying to hide the fact that the data had been manipulated to obtain a desired result and keep others from replication and verification which is the very basis of ALL SCIENTIFIC WORK.

There is no other reason not to archive the data.

 

[edthecynic]

The perpetual dumb act again!
Christy and Spencer at UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, turning global warming into global cooling. The deniers then used the fake UAH data to accuse all the honest scientists of faking their data. After the honest scientists checked and rechecked their data and found no errors, they asked UAH to check their data. UAH refused, obviously knowing their data was cooked! Finally RSS checked the UAH data and found numerous errors every one just happened to turn warming into cooling and RSS published a peer reviewed paper on the UAH errors and finally Christy admitted their data was in error.

Suuure, you are the one who is making a claim without evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You failed to realize that Dr. Christy THANKED DR. Means for pointing it out.

So you knew all along that it has only been the deniers who have used fake data and accused the honest scientists od using fake data to muddy the waters.

And Christy had no choice.
BTW, when the UAH data was corrected it matched the ground station data almost exactly!!!

No it was an unknown problem that Dr. Means brought up, which was duly noted by Dr. Christy. DR. Means wrote a paper on the error that shows UAH had a cooling bias in it, which was CORRECTED after DR. Means pointed it out. I know all this because I READ that paper when it came out and saw the acknowledgement by Dr. Christy.

Here is the 2005 paper from SCIENCE,

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

1. Carl A. Mears,
2. Frank J. Wentz

Science 02 Sep 2005

Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

LINK

There is no evidence that they were trying to hide errors or didn't correct them after Dr. Mears published paper.

Meanwhile UAH is using the most modern stable satellite that have ZERO drift errors to worry about, while RSS are using older Satellte that does have drift errors in it that has to be corrected. Since we don't know what the exact error is, a small bias could be creeping in.

UAH is currently probably the more reliable source for Satellite data.

Your own post confirms what I posted earlier.
Thank you.
To believe that Christy and Spencer at UAH did not fudge the data, you would have to believe that the two, who were billed by deniers as the foremost experts on satellite data, were BOTH too STUPID to know what the correct sign was for correcting diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic calculations in the field!!!!!!

UAH data is not now and has never been more reliable than other satellite data and ground station data.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates | John Abraham

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

Gawd even after I gave you the source you STILL ignored it!

Here it is the table of past corrections, maybe you will finally see it!

Look at the table in the link.

"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]

NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[11]"

Wikipedia LINK

You have NEVER showed they deliberately fudged the data. I showed that they TWICE corrected the errors when they were informed by DR. Mears, as clearly shown in the link.

Throughout the 1990s they refused to even check for errors and only corrected them when they had no choice after they were unequivocally proven when others invested the time and expense to check them and then published them in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[edthecynic]

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

Yeah, Bates made it cleat he was not happy with how the data was ARCHIVED!!!!!!
Not, as the OP's lie claimed, that the data was manipulated!!!
But you knew that already!

You obviously do NOT understand the scope of his objections, here I quote him WHY his complaint is relevant to the Karl paper:

"Figure 3. Data flow for surface temperature products described in K15 Science paper. Green indicates operational datasets having passed ORR and archived at time of publication. Red indicates experimental datasets never subject to ORR and never archived.

It is clear that the actual nearly-operational release of GHCN-Mv4 beta is significantly different from the version GHCNM3.X used in K15. Since the version GHCNM3.X never went through any ORR, the resulting dataset was also never archived, and it is virtually impossible to replicate the result in K15.

At the time of the publication of the K15, the final step in processing the NOAAGlobalTempV4 had been approved through an ORR, but not in the K15 configuration. It is significant that the current operational version of NOAAGlobalTempV4 uses GHCN-M V3.3.0 and does not include the ISTI dataset used in the Science paper. The K15 global merged dataset is also not archived nor is it available in machine-readable form. This is why the two boxes in figure 3 are colored red.

The lack of archival of the GHCN-M V3.X and the global merged product is also in violation of Science policy on making data available [link]. This policy states: “Climate data. Data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases”. Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?"

bolding mine

You finally get it?

I get repeating your lies does not make them any less of a lie!

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

This weekend, conservative media outlets launched an attack on climate scientists with a manufactured scandal. The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.

Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

“Misuse” is the understatement of the year
Misuse it people did – and how! Bates’ complaints boiled down to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures.” The Mail on Sunday (just banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source) warped that minor procedural criticism into the sensationalist headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”

The story then spread through the international conservative media like a global warming-intensified wildfire - to Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more. Scott Johnson summed up the fake news story perfectly in an article at Ars Technica:

At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.

At the same time, real science journalists who investigated the story quickly determined that it was fake news and published stories reflecting that reality. Readers of legitimate news outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, Carbon Brief, E&E News, Ars Technica, Science Insider, RealClimate, and numerous other science blogs were accurately informed, while consumers of biased right-wing news outlets that employ faux science journalists were grossly misinformed by alternative facts and fake news.

snip/

Bates’ complaints
It’s worth spending a bit more time examining the details of Bates’ accusations. He claimed that the 2015 NOAA paper correcting for known biases in the global surface temperature record was “rushed” for political reasons without proper data archiving, but the editor-in-chief of the journal Science in which the paper was published noted that the peer-review process actually took longer than average for this paper.

The paper was not rushed in any way. It had an exceptional number of reviewers, many more than average because we knew it was on a controversial topic. It had a lot of data analysis.

The lead author of the study, Thomas Karl responded to Bates’ complaints in an interview with the Washington Post:

The term ‘archive’ means a lot of different things to different people. … In this case, the data were available if anyone asked for it, and then they were archived further down the line after the paper was published.

While NOAA’s data archiving protocols are an internal matter, some outside scientists argue that the process to correct for known biases already takes too long. For example, global temperature data expert Kevin Cowtan told me:

The paper by Karl and colleagues corrected two known problems with the temperature observations: poor coverage of the Arctic, and a change from ships to buoys. Both had been known about since 2008. It took NOAA seven years to produce a paper correcting their temperature data, and even now their monthly updates still omit much of the Arctic.

The agencies face an impossible dilemma - on one hand they have to slowly and carefully evaluate new results, and on the other they have to provide an up-to-date temperature record. Rather than rushing out corrections, they appear to have been extremely conservative.

It’s particularly absurd that biased media outlets tried to manufacture a scandal out of this story, because just one month prior, Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, and colleagues had published a paper demonstrating that the data corrections in the NOAA paper are accurate. Moreover, the corrections themselves were quite small and inconsequential in the grand scheme of long-term human-caused global warming.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's confirmed. Scientists lied to us. And the liberal climate change tree-huggers bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic. Isn't it? The rest of us know better. Why? Because we don't have an agenda. We are interested in the truth. That's all. Well, here's some truth for you climate change nuts. You'll probably choke on it, but that's OK.

And the best part is that this is a government press release, so you can't even try to discredit the source. BWAHAHAHA!

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

It's all very well saying there were arguments in NOAA and that the data was released without proper controls etc. But what does that mean?

 

[SSDD]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Why do you think he is "making" anything of himself? I believe he is just showing his true nature. Does a cow "make a cow" out of itself by mooing and eating grass.

He is nothing other than what his statements suggest that he is.