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.
