flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
"A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.
“Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,”
Scientists have been debating over the so-called “pause” in global warming since at least 2013, referring to the period from 1998 to 2014 without any significant rise in global average temperature.
Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”
The usual braindead denier cult fraudulent drivel, based only on the stupidity, ignorance and gullility of the rightwingnuts.
In the real world....
Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.
On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.
Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:
● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.
● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”
● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.
● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”
● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.
● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.
● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "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," he said.
(Read more at site)
Bottom line line is -- the data USED to produced "PauseBuster" paper was never properly vetted by NOAA'S OWN internal data handling and archiving standards that the whistleblower helped to create. AND most importantly -- it's GONE -- not archived in digital form ANYWHERE on the planet.
Not to mention the fact that virtually ALL the land/sea based temperature studies GLOBALLY START with the most recent NOAA SSurface data. So "all the other papers" are just parroting the gimmicks and throwbacks to 19th century sea surface temperatures that Karl resurrected to create this farce.
Just use the fucking satellites. And make the NOAA/NASA data AGREE with the satellite data like it DID for 25 years before the "PAUSE" forced them to commit fraud.