Warming Data Intentionally Manipulated and Ignored

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
The only thing worse than no science is willfully manipulated science.

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

Karl was director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information when the report was published. (NOAA)

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century," Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

If you own a home, you should read this. Thousands of homeowners did this yesterday, and banks are furious! Do this now before ...

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
 
What a maroon. Go on then show us the evidence. Oh right, you have none.

What an ignoranamus.

 
See? This is what happens when you let your elephant mouth overload your butterfly ass. You didn't even bother to research the issue - you simply read a partial quote (didn't even look at the total article), and then ran off at the mouth, calling people names and making unsubstantiated accusations.

Let me guess ... Liberal Arts degree? French history, maybe? Because no serious student would make such an amateur mistake.

(Let me give you a hint - the NYT published a now much-discredited story claiming the accusation was false. You can start there.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA accused of manipulating global warming data

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

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

Read more: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

House Committee To ‘Push Ahead’ With Investigation Into Alleged Climate Data Manipulation At NOAA |

House Committee To ‘Push Ahead’ With Investigation Into Alleged Climate Data Manipulation At NOAA
Michael Bastasch on February 6, 2017

House lawmakers will renew their long-dormant investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the heels of whistleblower testimony that agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

“The chairman intends to push for responses to his initial requests,” an aide for the Committee on Science, Space and Technology told reporters on a press call Monday, “to uncover exactly what was going on” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

“There’s gotta be email traffic on this,” the aide said. NOAA turned over some internal emails in 2015, but many were redacted and more were withheld from the committee.

Smith’s investigation largely petered out in late 2015 after the Obama administration refused to hand over scientists’ emails regarding highly-publicized “Karl study,” named after its lead author Tom Karl. Democrats, environmentalists and science organizations joined forces to condemn Smith’s investigation.

Over the weekend, Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., went public with complaints that NOAA scientists put a ‘thumb on the scale’ to get results that showed more global warming since 1998 — a period usually referred to as the “pause” in warming.

“The committee is going to push ahead to gather the emails from NOAA,” the aide said, signalling Smith preferred to see if NOAA would hand over documents the agency withheld from congressional investigators.

The committee aide said they had heard from other NOAA whistleblowers as well, but would not bring that evidence forward until given permission by sources.

Smith expects NOAA will turn over the subpoenaed documents. President Trump appointed investor Wilbur Ross as secretary of commerce, but has not appointed an NOAA administrator. NOAA is part of the Commerce Department. Ross is expected to be confirmed, but it’s not clear when the Senate will vote.

Bates told The Daily Mail the authors of the Karl study wanted “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Moreover, Bates said Karl did not archive his study as required by NOAA policy, and noted the computer holding the software used by the study “suffered a complete failure.”

The Karl study made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend of that period to 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade from 0.039 degrees per decade. Some scientists were skeptical of the data, and lawmakers were briefed on the study in summer 2015.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it will “review” allegations its researchers rushed the Karl study. Others, however, rushed to defend the Karl study.

University of California-Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather recently co-authored a paper that found the Karl study was more accurate than the NOAA data it replaced.

Hausfather rebuffed criticisms of the temperature data used in the Karl study, adding it “strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.”

Bates has put out a second blog post taking each criticism on one-by-one. Critics have yet to address issues of Karl study authors violating NOAA policy on archiving.
 
The only thing worse than no science is willfully manipulated science.

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

Karl was director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information when the report was published. (NOAA)

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century," Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

If you own a home, you should read this. Thousands of homeowners did this yesterday, and banks are furious! Do this now before ...

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
585856461c00000a070ec769.jpeg
 
The only thing worse than no science is willfully manipulated science.

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

Karl was director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information when the report was published. (NOAA)

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century," Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

If you own a home, you should read this. Thousands of homeowners did this yesterday, and banks are furious! Do this now before ...

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
585856461c00000a070ec769.jpeg


Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking .... a meme from a liberal certainly transcends publicized data, a congressional investigation, and an admission from a scientist directly involved.

If you can't contribute something intelligent, why don't you just shut up?

Course, that means we may never hear from you again, but, hey .... you weren't contributing anything anyway.
 
MMGW continues to unravel as these stories keep coming to light. Deception, fake data, and fake alarmism drive this narrative.
 
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking .... a meme from a liberal certainly transcends publicized data, a congressional investigation, and an admission from a scientist directly involved.
Except Bates and his partner in crime Rose have already been caught fudging the data they tried to disprove Karl with. That's why Bates no longer claims Karl's data was flawed, but only claims it was not archived properly.

Here is the fake graph Rose made where he deliberately and dishonestly used two different baselines for the two data sets he compared. Below it is the same data using a common baseline, the only honest way to compare two sets of data.

Rose's dishonest graph.
noaa-hadley-published-anoms-1-1024x819.png

Same data with an honest common baseline.
noaa-hadley-common-baseline-1-1024x819.png
 
What a maroon. Go on then show us the evidence. Oh right, you have none.

What an ignoranamus.








Typical anti science religious nutter response. He provided a factual story and you respond with nothing but an insult. 'Tis you who are the ignoramus.
 
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking .... a meme from a liberal certainly transcends publicized data, a congressional investigation, and an admission from a scientist directly involved.
Except Bates and his partner in crime Rose have already been caught fudging the data they tried to disprove Karl with. That's why Bates no longer claims Karl's data was flawed, but only claims it was not archived properly.

Here is the fake graph Rose made where he deliberately and dishonestly used two different baselines for the two data sets he compared. Below it is the same data using a common baseline, the only honest way to compare two sets of data.

Rose's dishonest graph.
noaa-hadley-published-anoms-1-1024x819.png

Same data with an honest common baseline.
noaa-hadley-common-baseline-1-1024x819.png


So, where is the geo-engineering equation in all of this? You need to address this if you wish to be taken seriously.......
 
Its always been about the "thumb on the scale" with these frauds.:gay:

And I gotta say........how sweet is it to see progressives getting their asses pwned everywhere you look these days?

And notice......the losing has gotten so spectacular that the automatic response these days is "FAKE NEWS"!!:up:
 
Here is the only thing that matters here......:eusa_dance:........:eusa_dance:........:eusa_dance:

In 2017, the science is not mattering in the real world. This story only serves to make it more laughable for non-global warming religion people. The whole "consensus" narrative stuff is completely irrelevant outside of the circle of asshat science, internet forums, the media and academia......which basically means, nobody is caring.. Supporters of the religion cant point to one thing with a link that can display for us that climate change is having any impact on public policy......and this is after 20+ years of bomb throwing:deal: And that's the state of things today for these bozo's.......and to just think......President Trump will soon be cleaning the clocks of these assholes!! The winning at this point has gone to a level of beyond epic.:popcorn::popcorn:
 
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking .... a meme from a liberal certainly transcends publicized data, a congressional investigation, and an admission from a scientist directly involved.
Except Bates and his partner in crime Rose have already been caught fudging the data they tried to disprove Karl with. That's why Bates no longer claims Karl's data was flawed, but only claims it was not archived properly.

Here is the fake graph Rose made where he deliberately and dishonestly used two different baselines for the two data sets he compared. Below it is the same data using a common baseline, the only honest way to compare two sets of data.

Rose's dishonest graph.
noaa-hadley-published-anoms-1-1024x819.png

Same data with an honest common baseline.
noaa-hadley-common-baseline-1-1024x819.png


So, where is the geo-engineering equation in all of this? You need to address this if you wish to be taken seriously.......
The deliberately dishonest Rose graph uses a 30 year 1961 to 1990 anomaly baseline for the Hadley data set and a 100 year 1901 to 2000 anomaly baseline for the NOAA data set. The bottom graph uses the same 1961 to 1990 baseline for both data sets. This is a common trick that deniers use to pretend that the data was manipulated, I caught our own CrusaderFrank trying the same trick on another thread.
NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F
 
MSM reporting this stuff.....Im shocked. More AGW k00k losing.....on top of Climategate, more fodder for non-members of the religion to ponder. I urge anybody taking a gander into this thread to read the link from KONRAD above.......so much speculation its dizzying not to mention the deliberate attempt to confuse the reader. Its the methods of progressives in 2017 s0ns......call it "fake news" or rebut the argument from the other side by blinding you with graphs, numbers etc. Check the many, many vague phrases used in the article, "less accurate"....."little reason"......"probably the most accurate"......."strongly suggests"........"agrees quite well"........."relatively little increase"............."get effectively the same results". What a crock of shit......but sure as hell can dupe the reader. When you start seeing terms from progressive articles like "higher"......."warmer"....."increasingly"........"highly likely"........"slower".........."more"....raise the bs radar real high folks!!!:gay::gay:

But don't take my word for it.......check KONRAD's link yourself!!:popcorn:

Oh...........and still have yet to see a single link displaying for us where the "science" is mattering in the real world?:2up:
 
MSM reporting this stuff.....Im shocked. More AGW k00k losing.....on top of Climategate, more fodder for non-members of the religion to ponder. I urge anybody taking a gander into this thread to read the link from KONRAD above.......so much speculation its dizzying not to mention the deliberate attempt to confuse the reader. Its the methods of progressives in 2017 s0ns......call it "fake news" or rebut the argument from the other side by blinding you with graphs, numbers etc. Check the many, many vague phrases used in the article, "less accurate"....."little reason"......"probably the most accurate"......."strongly suggests"........"agrees quite well"........."relatively little increase"............."get effectively the same results". What a crock of shit......but sure as hell can dupe the reader. When you start seeing terms from progressive articles like "higher"......."warmer"....."increasingly"........"highly likely"........"slower".........."more"....raise the bs radar real high folks!!!:gay::gay:

But don't take my word for it.......check KONRAD's link yourself!!:popcorn:

Oh...........and still have yet to see a single link displaying for us where the "science" is mattering in the real world?:2up:
The dupes are those that think that the OP proves anything, when it only provides innuendo and ignores the real science involved.
 

Faux News, Daily Mail, and the Daily Caller... You're the Paragon of Discernment, aren't you? But the "long-dormant investigation" into the devastating threat of Un-American Data will sure yield something, once Lamar of Texass and his minions are seriously on it.

Goes without saying, the "manipulated" new NOAA data stand up splendidly to scrutiny, and fall in line with other investigations into the "hiatus" that wasn't.

old-and-new-noaa-ssts-v3-1024x1024.png


As usual, the denialingdongs are doing what they do best, never get their head out of their echo chamber, and fall for the oldest trickery there is, namely, picking very convenient beginning and end dates for their investigation of warming trends in conjunction with "noise" in the data (yearly or multi-year oscillations) being an order of magnitude bigger than the trend.

Intellectually speaking, that's not even spare change.
 
Very short window..and even in that short time...new NOAA, satellites, and bouys, and old NOAA diverge by .10 degrees...data manipulation..nothing more.
 
Yet with all the flap yap and 'alternative facts' from the right wing, the Arctic Sea Ice and the Antarctic Sea Ice are both at record lows. The alpine glaciers continue to recede. And the Arctic continues to warm at twice the rate of anywhere else. But defunding science, and publishing faked graphs is going to fix all of that, correct. LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top